US Cavalry 1876

Discussions on historical model building of all eras.
daveshoup2MarDiv
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 07 Aug 2023 02:55
Location: Hawaii

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by daveshoup2MarDiv » 03 Feb 2024 18:28

Richard Anderson wrote:
03 Feb 2024 17:57
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
And of course, as much joy as data uber alles types get from "it's just math," anyone who actually has - let's say - seen the elephant in an actual conflict - knows that's far from the only factor in the equation.
Absolutely. I just get irritated when both the math and the reality of seeing the elephant get factored out of the equation, which most often happens in what ifs and technical discussions of weapons capabilities.
As a fairly well-regarded combat soldier and analyst once said: ""War is the continuation of politics by other means."
Actually, what he said was "War is not just the continuation of politics by other means", in other words, it is much more than that, which is subtly different from what many think he said... :lol: [heads for the door looking over his shoulder]
re 1, yes, who was it, some other combat commander: "Morale is to the physical ..."? ;)

and re 2, well, in the original German, it's probably even less intelligible, but you get the point - which is more than some. ;)

NSpencer
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 03 Jan 2024 20:48
Location: IOW UK

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by NSpencer » 03 Feb 2024 18:56

daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
One realizes these discussions tend to wander based on personal caprice and completely unsourced material gets thrown up on a regular basis, but it's always helpful to at least attempt to respond to the point being made.
I await, with interest, your data on which you base you claim, absent such data, i can only concur about personal caprice.
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
And of course, as much joy as data uber alles types get from "it's just math," anyone who actually has - let's say - seen the elephant in an actual conflict - knows that's far from the only factor in the equation.

Except math is the explanation, not my 35 years combat service, which is not relevant, what is relevant is your absent of evidence to support your claims.
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
As a fairly well-regarded combat soldier and analyst once said: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
Except of course, while of interest, its not relevant to casualty infliction rates, and what he wrote "“war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means,”

The Uk political position was that the Boer s were to be assimilated/annexed into Natal colony and not be free sovereign entities, this they achieved by annexing them in 1877, a war then broke out and restored them as sovereigns, only to be crushed in the second war and ending Boer independence to this day.
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
If one combatant - even the one which purportedly "better" training or equipment or uniforms or whatever - loses on the battlefield, guess what? They still lost.
As i explained, the Boers lost the political existence in the second Boer war, thats the price they paid for temporary military success in the first Boer war.

daveshoup2MarDiv
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 07 Aug 2023 02:55
Location: Hawaii

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by daveshoup2MarDiv » 03 Feb 2024 19:03

NSpencer wrote:
03 Feb 2024 18:56
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
And of course, as much joy as data uber alles types get from "it's just math," anyone who actually has - let's say - seen the elephant in an actual conflict - knows that's far from the only factor in the equation.
Except math is the explanation, not my 35 years combat service, which is not relevant, what is relevant is your absent of evidence to support your claims.
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 16:58
If one combatant - even the one which purportedly "better" training or equipment or uniforms or whatever - loses on the battlefield, guess what? They still lost.
As i explained, the Boers lost the political existence in the second Boer war, that's the price they paid for temporary military success in the first Boer war.
35 years combat service? Dare one ask with what organization?

Even the late unpleasantness in SW Asia didn't last that long ...

And glad you agree the British lost the 1880-81 war in South Africa, since that was the point originally made that you threw "data" from both the 1899-1902 war and the US Civil War (1861-65) conflict at, after your initial post.

That's progress. ;)

NSpencer
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 03 Jan 2024 20:48
Location: IOW UK

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by NSpencer » 03 Feb 2024 19:11

daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 19:03

And glad you agree the British lost the 1880-81 war in South Africa, since that was the point originally made that you threw "data" from both the 1899-1902 war and the US Civil War (1861-65) conflict at, after your initial post.

That's progress. ;)
No progress in your reading comprehension skill set, or short term memory* the casualty infliction rate difference between those unfamiliar with weapons and those trained in their use was explained using math, using well known historical examples, but apparently not to you, and they do not explain the first Boer wars outcome.

You made a claim as to casualty rate infliction, and i have seen nothing to support that from you, so no progress there either.
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 19:03
There's also the minor point that even in open country - South Africa in 1879 or 1881 - whatever "marksmanship training" the British regulars had, it didn't translate to prevailing on the battlefield.
Except the UK fought in 1879 was the Anglo Zulu war, and they won and the Zulu state was no more, as was much of the male Zulu population, the only other war it fought in that year was the second Afghan war, where they lost twice what they lost in the first Boer war, having annexed the Transvaal earlier the Boers declared independence fought two wars to keep it, in the end, they failed to do so. Dont really see history of the period is your desk.
Last edited by NSpencer on 03 Feb 2024 19:38, edited 2 times in total.

daveshoup2MarDiv
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 07 Aug 2023 02:55
Location: Hawaii

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by daveshoup2MarDiv » 03 Feb 2024 19:30

NSpencer wrote:
03 Feb 2024 19:11
daveshoup2MarDiv wrote:
03 Feb 2024 19:03

And glad you agree the British lost the 1880-81 war in South Africa, since that was the point originally made that you threw "data" from both the 1899-1902 war and the US Civil War (1861-65) conflict at, after your initial post.

That's progress. ;)
No progress in your reading comprehension skill set, the casualty infliction rate difference between those unfamiliar with weapons and those trained in their use was explained using math, using well known historical examples, but apparently not to you, and they do not explain the loss.

You made a claim as to casualty rate infliction, and i have seen nothing to support that from you, so no progress there either.
Seems overtly hostile, chum; but glad you do recognize the British didn't win in South Africa in 1880-81, since that's what the post you jumped on referenced - not 1899-1902, or 1861-65.

Of course, it also referenced the "washing of the spears" - not exactly a triumph of British small arms training there, either; (not quite Mboto Gorge, of course, but some people had more than sharpened pieces of fruit).

And the British fought the Zulu in 1798? The things one learns ...

Good luck, everyone. ;)

User avatar
yantaylor
Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by yantaylor » 03 Feb 2024 21:28

I really don’t see were this is going; it is generally said that the British army always had good fire discipline and trained hard in achieving so. South Africa and its Victorian wars has never interest much, except maybe the film Zulu, but all I know is that South Africa is still a commonwealth country and fought beside us in two world wars.

Going back to BLBH, one Indian caused a stir with his shooting prowess, as Sgt Ryan states;

We had been in this position but a short time when they advanced in great numbers from the direction in which we came.
They made several charges upon us and we repulsed them every time. Finally, they surrounded us. Soon the firing became general all along the line, very rapid and at close range. The company on the right of my company had a number of men killed in a few minutes. There was a high ridge on the right and an opening on the right of our lines, and one Indian in particular I must give credit for being a good shot.

While we were lying in this line, he fired a shot and killed the fourth man on my right. Soon afterward he fired again and shot the third man. His third shot wounded the man on my right, who jumped back from the line, and down among the rest of the wounded. I thought my turn was coming next. I jumped up, with Captain French, and some half a dozen members of my company, and, instead of firing straight to the front, as we had been doing up to the time of this incident, we wheeled to our right and put in a deadly volley, and I think we put an end to that Indian, as there were no more men killed at that particular spot.

Ian

daveshoup2MarDiv
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 07 Aug 2023 02:55
Location: Hawaii

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by daveshoup2MarDiv » 03 Feb 2024 23:01

yantaylor wrote:
03 Feb 2024 21:28
I really don’t see were this is going; it is generally said that the British army always had good fire discipline and trained hard in achieving so. South Africa and its Victorian wars has never interest much, except maybe the film Zulu, but all I know is that South Africa is still a commonwealth country and fought beside us in two world wars.
Simply that marksmanship on the range is not battle, and vice-versa? Especially in an era of black powder firearms.

NSpencer
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 03 Jan 2024 20:48
Location: IOW UK

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by NSpencer » 04 Feb 2024 14:29

yantaylor wrote:
03 Feb 2024 21:28
I really don’t see were this is going; it is generally said that the British army always had good fire discipline and trained hard in achieving so. South Africa and its Victorian wars has never interest much, except maybe the film Zulu, but all I know is that South Africa is still a commonwealth country and fought beside us in two world wars.
Its more of where it comes from, Napoleonic wars with c400 rnds to cause a casualty, and 3 rndsa mins fire rate, to establishing schools of musketry at Hythe in Uk and Vincennes in France to reduce the number of rounds to cause a hit and increase the rate of fire, and have users proficient in firearms use, while J Gibbon pre WBTS in the US was advocating no need to have soldiers familiar with how to use their weapon.

Anglo Zulu war contained 7 major engagements, the total Empire forces employed in them numbered 22390 and Zulu was 73750, of which 1748 and 10,300 became casualties, or a 6:1 ratio casualty infliction rate, while being outnumbered 3.2 to one, of course 1300 of the British and allies losses occur at Isandlwana, and comprised 75% of all the wars losses, if that is excluded, the casualty infliction rate goes from 6:1 to 14:1 for the rest of the engagements, and Ishlandwana itself was a 3:1 casualty infliction rate and its generally understood it turned into a disaster due to inability to maintain the munition supplies needed, at the extended distance from supply, to the over extended MLR, to keep 0s of 000s of Zulus from closing to contact. Volley fire by Bttn Coy section, rank, etc is predictable in its spacing of time between volleys, Zulus simple ran forward and dropped prone between volleys, this tactic saw the massive loss of life in the other battles as Uk troops were able to maintain 40 rnds a man over short time periods,( 400 over 180 mins) rate expenditure.

US Army did not practice live fire,and its QM reports on munitions issued, reveal battles like G/Burg saw 4.5 million rounds issued to cause c26000 CS casualties, thats 173 rounds to cause a casualty, and thats ignoring the US shell and cannister rounds expended. Rosebud c160 rnds a casualty.
Last edited by NSpencer on 04 Feb 2024 14:43, edited 2 times in total.

NSpencer
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 03 Jan 2024 20:48
Location: IOW UK

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by NSpencer » 04 Feb 2024 14:32

yantaylor wrote:
03 Feb 2024 21:28


Going back to BLBH, one Indian caused a stir with his shooting prowess, as Sgt Ryan states;

We had been in this position but a short time when they advanced in great numbers from the direction in which we came.
They made several charges upon us and we repulsed them every time. Finally, they surrounded us. Soon the firing became general all along the line, very rapid and at close range. The company on the right of my company had a number of men killed in a few minutes. There was a high ridge on the right and an opening on the right of our lines, and one Indian in particular I must give credit for being a good shot.

While we were lying in this line, he fired a shot and killed the fourth man on my right. Soon afterward he fired again and shot the third man. His third shot wounded the man on my right, who jumped back from the line, and down among the rest of the wounded. I thought my turn was coming next. I jumped up, with Captain French, and some half a dozen members of my company, and, instead of firing straight to the front, as we had been doing up to the time of this incident, we wheeled to our right and put in a deadly volley, and I think we put an end to that Indian, as there were no more men killed at that particular spot.

Ian
He also had an interesting life story outside of LBH to be sure. Here are some more, that you might not have seen? https://www.menwithcuster.com/01/

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3678
Joined: 28 Apr 2013 17:14
Location: London

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by Sheldrake » 04 Feb 2024 15:32

Custer's Widow wrote several books, including the following.

Life of The boy general; story of the life of Major-General George A. Custer, as told by Elizabeth B. Custer ..
by Custer, Elizabeth Bacon, 1842-1933; Burt, Mary E. (Mary Elizabeth), 1850-1918
https://archive.org/details/boygenerals ... 3/mode/2up

Boots and saddles : or, Life in Dakota with General Custer, by Custer, Elizabeth Bacon, 1842-1933
https://archive.org/details/bootsandsaddles02custgoog

A couple of points of interest for military modellers

"The soldiers were a superb lot of men physically. The outdoor life had developed them into perfect specimens of vigorous manhood. After the company tailor had cut over their uniforms, they were often the perfection of good fitting. The older soldiers wore, on the sleeves of their coats, the rows of braid that designate the number of years in the service. Some had the army badges of the corps in which they fought during the war, while an occasional foreign decoration showed that they had been brave soldiers in the fatherland."
Were there veterans from 1866 or 1870 in the ranks of the 7th Cavalry?

" Before the war some officer wished to measure the distance of a day's march, and having no odometer elected his wife to that office. The length of the revolution of a wheel was taken, a white handkerchief tied to a spoke, and the madam was made to count the rotations all day long."


This latter also has some surprising insights into matters of gender transaction and a touch of Broke Back mountain around p198....

daveshoup2MarDiv
Member
Posts: 639
Joined: 07 Aug 2023 02:55
Location: Hawaii

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by daveshoup2MarDiv » 04 Feb 2024 20:40

NSpencer wrote:
04 Feb 2024 14:32
yantaylor wrote:
03 Feb 2024 21:28


Going back to BLBH, one Indian caused a stir with his shooting prowess, as Sgt Ryan states;

We had been in this position but a short time when they advanced in great numbers from the direction in which we came.
They made several charges upon us and we repulsed them every time. Finally, they surrounded us. Soon the firing became general all along the line, very rapid and at close range. The company on the right of my company had a number of men killed in a few minutes. There was a high ridge on the right and an opening on the right of our lines, and one Indian in particular I must give credit for being a good shot.

While we were lying in this line, he fired a shot and killed the fourth man on my right. Soon afterward he fired again and shot the third man. His third shot wounded the man on my right, who jumped back from the line, and down among the rest of the wounded. I thought my turn was coming next. I jumped up, with Captain French, and some half a dozen members of my company, and, instead of firing straight to the front, as we had been doing up to the time of this incident, we wheeled to our right and put in a deadly volley, and I think we put an end to that Indian, as there were no more men killed at that particular spot.

Ian
He also had an interesting life story outside of LBH to be sure. Here are some more, that you might not have seen? https://www.menwithcuster.com/01/
Fascinating material. Does seem like a skilled artisan (saddler/watchmaker) with all of Canada at his feet (much less the US) in the 1870s would have had better opportunities than the US Army on the frontier, but perhaps not if the motivation was to "disappear" in the sort of "what was your names in the States" sort of way...

User avatar
yantaylor
Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by yantaylor » 04 Feb 2024 21:56

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/13046937
[urlhttps://www.amazon.co.uk/Strategy-Defeat-Little ... 078647954X][/url]

Two books from a really great guy, I regarded Fred as a friend, we shared a lot of time together on various forums concerning the BLBH.
Sadly passed away, a great loss but he had a full life and a Vietnam vet too.

Ian

User avatar
Mark in Cleveland, Tn.
Member
Posts: 5758
Joined: 27 Jul 2004 01:30
Location: Cleveland ,tennessee

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by Mark in Cleveland, Tn. » 06 Feb 2024 02:40


User avatar
yantaylor
Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by yantaylor » 07 Feb 2024 17:41

Yes Mark those are the same figures.

Ian

User avatar
yantaylor
Member
Posts: 1085
Joined: 20 Mar 2011 14:53
Location: Cheshire

Re: US Cavalry 1876

Post by yantaylor » 10 Feb 2024 21:37

Thinking of using these paints for the Cavalry;

Vallejo Dark Russian Blue 899 for coats and Hats
Vallejo Sky Blue 961 for trousers

Ian

Return to “Model building”