| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 24 2004 : 10:17:56 AM
|
Dark Cloud/Slan
There was a cavalry unit involved at the battle of Omdurman. The unit in question was the 21st Lancers. One of the officers (on temporary secondment) might be passingly known to you - his name was Winston Churchill. If you are interested there is a snippet on the following webpage
http://www.qrl.uk.com/h_21.html
Still the battle of Omdurman bears no comparison with that of LBH. The Indians of the LBH were in general far better armed than the Dervishes of Omdurman. I would imagine that the Indians would scatter from a sabre charge and then pick off the soldiers from a safe distance with their bows and Winchesters.
Incidently, the Mark I Enfield revolver (.476 calibre) was developed due to Dervishes, who impolitely refused to drop dead when plugged with the standard army revolvers. I think this might say something about which weapon most cavalrymen preferred.
|
  |
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 11:39:06 AM
|
I was aware of Churchill's presence, of course, but I was looking for a saber charge and whether the sabre was 'used to great effect' at the battle. It sounds like a fiasco, involving British lances (the dervi had swords, I guess) and a quick dismount for rifle fire when they got suckered into attacking a huge number. So, I remain confused, and the charge, while dramatic, doesn't seem to have been that important to the outcome or the battle as a whole and was against a bunch of, well, dervishes. Neither does it seem to have been that successful.
There was a successful small cavalry charge the Brits made against the Germans at the very start of WWI, and the Poles in WWII tried it, but as a rule, even in our CW cavalry never dared attack functional infantry or artillery. It was stupid, and they were pretty much relegated to being dragoons or having dramatic fights with each other to dubious effect.
John Buford had this pretty much figured out, but he died before he could install that necessary mentality. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 4:29:12 PM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
As Dave pointed out the 21st lancers delivered the knock out blow to the Dervishes.They were used in the classic cavalry role of charging down a defeated enemy trying to regroup.Besides having Winston Churchill present it is also recognised as the last great cavalry charge of modern times.Although I think Dave's Aussies had a light hourse regiment that did something naughty to the Turkish artillary in Palastine in the first world war.
The point I'm making is that the weapons of the 7th were not suitable for such action.For example the carbine used was choosen because of its long range effectiveness.
Your dismissal of the Boers as mere farmers must have the poor fallen of the Highland brigade,the Lancashire Fusilers and our own Irish brigade turning in their graves.Check out the casualties for the Spion kop or Magersfontein and remember they were inflicted by rifle fire at ranges of over 800 yards.And who do you think won you your own independence?
Okay, we should get out of the habit (I violate it as well) of using the term "the Indians" because it connotes a commander or some osmotic ability to react as one to events,
Your not saying there was no leadership among the Indians?That the likes of Crazy Horse, Gall & Co did not have a major influence on the actions of their respective followers/tribes.Because if you are perhaps Custer was not to blame.That 99 times out of a hundred the Indians would have reacted like headless chickens and Custer just got them on a bad day.
I actually ment to say that the Indian withdrawal offered Benteen the opportunity to counter attack.But of course that's giving Benteen the advantage of hindsight and knowledge of all the strenghts and dispositions of the forces engaged.
Bye the bye Dave Slan is not my name it is Irish for goodbye.
Seeya mate |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 5:06:29 PM
|
The French won us independence, pretty much. Had the Boers sent a guest brigade? Certainly wasn't our riflemen that won independence.
Washington wasn't much of a military general, and he tended to lose even when we outnumbered the British. As for our fabled Minutemen, the stats don't back them up. At Lexington, the supposedly slow, mastadonic Brits killed more of us running around than our supposed skilled frontiersmen hit firing into their inert wall of red.
During their later march, we were able to kill far more of them from behind. However, percentage of hits to shots fired is ominously missing from sacred texts. The battles we won featured generals not named Washington and featured standard tactics.
The weapons the 7th had were not suitable for the actions you describe because such scenarios didn't occur that way in Indian war. In a one to one encounter, the soldier was dead meat with a sword. The Indians had pistols and used them and were simply better hand to hand.
About the Boer War: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/haywardlad/boerwar2.html
Excepts:
"In the opening weeks of the Boer War, Kruger’s shoddy, ill-disciplined guerrillas inflicted a stunning series of defeats on Britain."
regarding Magersfontein
"A horrible truth dawned on every man: the Boers were not , as they had always been before, at the top of the ridge; they were entrenched at its foot, where they could fire blindly and hardly miss."
Any army that could count on any arguable sort of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards has never remotely existed. That's ludicrous, and in the cases mentioned, not true. The incompetence of the British is rather astonishing, getting into confined quarters with no cover and getting shot to pieces by surrounding farmers with no particular skill. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
inwit
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 7:03:00 PM
|
Getting back to the original question:
The US Army War College (or some such entity) had an officer training course a few years ago where the officers had to stand in Custer's shoes and make decisions based on what Custer actually knew at any given point in time. Result? Overwhelmingly, the officers made the same decisions as Custer.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
inwit
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 7:21:13 PM
|
| Everybody lies but you Dark Cloud. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 8:35:13 PM
|
Inwit,your post rises an interesting perspective that should be discussed sans, the annoying gibberish of cynicism we've grown so accustomed to of late. This study you refer to seems to suggest that battles of similar circumstances may produce similar results. This is a reasonable hypothesis worth investigating.
General Custer reacted to specific events that, unbeknownst to him, were false. The Indians were not running away and they were willing to make a stand. Beguiled by false impressions, he committed his forces and paid the price. This does not make a celebrated Civil War General and graduate of West Point an idiot.
There is a unique cultural truism that persistently arises in battles where the perceived winner(white race) fails to win, and is vanquished by an enemy (fill in the blank) perceived to be inferior. This ethnocentric ideolgy demands a scapegoat to explain away the impossible. Custer led, he and his men died, therefore he was an imbicile to have attacked in the first place. Your point, that other men under the same conditions may have done the same thing has been lost because of cynical, don't confuse me with facts, ignoramuses who constanlty sprout; I am correct, and all those who disgree with me are liars! In other words, thank you sir for offering choices. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 8:56:40 PM
|
| Wild I, your post of 5/17/04 was very puzzling to me and, I wish that you would proffer some clarification of your statements. When you wrote, "I know the pack train will lag behind so take your wiskey with you.", were you serious? Another comment, "One last thing, we will be communicating in Italian.", made no sense either. I would quote more but, I think you get the gest. What was the point of your message? To say that your comments were the most significant, inexplicable, waste of time and thought would be the understatement of the millennium. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 24 2004 : 9:42:52 PM
|
Wiggs, who has called Custer an imbecile?
He knew the Indians wern't running away. THEN he committed his five companies, about an hour after Reno attacked.
Further, except for you, nobody that I know of has lied on this board and nobody except you has been accused of such. It's silly because your lie is in print and noted by others besides me. To try and gather others about you to dilute perception of your actions is even worse. They haven't done what you did.
There are lots of stories about the LBH, most garbarge. To say 'this happened' and not be able to back it up and get nailed for it is our lot. Has happened to me. Will happen again. It hurts, you learn. I've been wrong, and lately, and have admitted it cheerfully. (If you disagree, give me an example.) But I won't play "Let's exchange hypothetical maudlin fictions and discuss them as if they were real", a popular game unremarked, nor "Let's torture evidence and make up quotes that stick it to Reno and Benteen or to Custer so I can insert my favorite maudlin quote," a variant.
Half that stuff reads like thought bubbles from a bad comic book. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
prolar
Major
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 01:22:35 AM
|
| I believe the incident Inwit refers to is decribed in the preface to A Road We Do Not Know, a very good novel about LBH. The author,Chivington,Sp? is a retired Army officer. He decribed the incident as a part of his experience.Please forgive my interference Inwit. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 04:25:53 AM
|
Hi Joe
Wild I, your post of 5/17/04 was very puzzling to me and, I wish that you would proffer some clarification of your statements. When you wrote, "I know the pack train will lag behind so take your wiskey with you.", were you serious? Another comment, "One last thing, we will be communicating in Italian.",
It was an attempt at good old fashioned sarcasm.[you really are an innocent Joe]
I grouped all of Custer's mistakes together and put them in the form of a plan for action that day.
For example he knew that Reno and most of his officers were heavy drinkers and probably had whiskey in their canteens rather than water.Did Cooke have a clear head when he wrote that famous order?
The reference to communication in Italian was to highlight the stupidity of dispatching a messenger who could only speak Italian with a life or death message.Combine the two and you get a drunken executive officer writing a stupid message and entrusting it to an Italian speaking messenger.
Don't ask me to explain the rest.
Slan |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 05:29:18 AM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
[The weapons the 7th had were not suitable for the actions you describe because such scenarios didn't occur that way in Indian war.
Then why did Custer try to use classic cavalry tactics when the main weapon of his troopers was a single shot longrange carbine?
"In the opening weeks of the Boer War, Kruger’s shoddy, ill-disciplined guerrillas inflicted a stunning series of defeats on Britain."
The Boer Army was not a guerilla army but a highly mobile field army.Taking on the regular British army in set piece battles and defeating them.They even laid seige to many of the British held towns.
The standard unit of the Boer army was the "commando" a name adopted by many elite units in armies around the world.
regarding Magersfontein
"A horrible truth dawned on every man: the Boers were not , as they had always been before, at the top of the ridge; they were entrenched at its foot, where they could fire blindly and hardly miss."
So these shoddy illdisciplined farmboys had it figured out that if they entrenched at the base of the ridge they would avoid the Brit artillery and hey bullets have a greater killing zone if travelling horizontally rather than if plunging down at an angle.
Ya gotta get better research material.
Any army that could count on any arguable sort of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards has never remotely existed. That's ludicrous,
It depends on the target.The Brits occupied the summit of the Spion Cop and dug themselves a trench[grave]at least 300 yards long.The Boers took possession of the surrounding hights many of them higher than the Spion Cop and also flanking it.Engaging a target 300 yards long filled with troops was no problem even at a range of 800 yards.
Like I say ya got ta get better research material.
Apologies for straying way off subject but if ya get the chance to stick one on Dark Cloud ya got ta take it.
Slan
|
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 10:21:46 AM
|
Wild:
My apologies, I just assumed that you were signing off with a Gaelic name.
On the question of weapons. I think you will find that the 7th were armed, equivalently or better, than just about any of their overseas counterparts. While its true that neither the trapdoor Springfield, or the SAA Colt were particularly good cavalry weapons, they were really no worse than the weapons being used elsewhere.
Complicating the situation was the shadow of the civil war, which saw military budgets being slashed across the board (look at number of new ships produced for the US navy during this period - 1870's).
So although more advanced weapon designs existed, and were available, the money just wasn't there.
A few small points of interest on the weapons front (gleaned from the internet - so take with a grain of salt).
1. Custer apparently carried a pair of British Bulldogs or a pair of Webley RIC's (Royal Irish Constabulary) revolvers. These were double action revolvers, which might indicate that Custer wasn't enarmoured with the prospect of using the single action Colt from horseback (the Colts less endearing sobriquets included the "thumb buster" and the "wait a minute revolver" (from the time it took to reload)).
2. A posting I read in a usenet archive (not the most reliable source I appreciate) stated that the 7th was involved in trialing some new rifle designs during the campaign. Some the rifles were Ward-Burton carbines (also used on the Yellowstone expedition I think) and some may have been a British rifle. Evidently none of these experimental weapons made it to the battlefield.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 12:26:53 PM
|
Wild,
What 'classic' tactics did Custer use that apply solely or even primarily to cavalry? A flank attack? Come on. There's only so much you can do. In any case, the cavalry throughout the west mostly were used as dragoons.
Regarding the Boers, you've accused my sources as being inferior to yours, which are unnamed utterly. In fact, the evidence you provide supports me. The Brits and Boers were in a war of incompetents. The British exaggerated their enemy's cunning to hide their own problems.
But to describe the Boers as a Field Army is ridiculous. They were independents, and they got up and left when they felt like it, they lived off the land. Who knows what innate common sense drew them to certain tactics, but it sometimes worked and the Brits just kept coming rather than rethink their own tactics, which no doubt were by a beloved manual. To ascribe coincidental benefit of tactic to deep understanding of physics might be true, to one man or several, but given so much else they did was counterproductive (like the war itself), unlikely.
You implied that degrading Boer shooting skills was untrue because they killed from 800 yards and the example you propose as illustration is a fish in barrel exercise that tends not to support great skill, to say no more.
Defeating the British Army at the time could probably have been accomplished by 4000 desultory hairdressers with loofahs(an image I've used before and find useful). That was pretty much the conclusion of the Roberts inquiry and the Balfour government to come. The Navy as well.
Whatever you stuck wasn't me, I'm afraid. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
inwit
Corporal
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 1:17:18 PM
|
prolar,
Thx. I saw it in a couple of other places also. It is an interesting execrise to do for certain key events such as Crow's Nest, Weir Point, etc.
A famous chess player named Tal once said (after losing a world championship match), that "the winner is awlays right and the loser is always wrong," or words to that effect.
Custer could have made "correct" decisions that were terrible based on factors that he could not have known or because of things that happened later in time that day. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 2:17:54 PM
|
Hi Dark Cloud
What 'classic' tactics did Custer use that apply solely or even primarily to cavalry? A flank attack? Come on. There's only so much you can do. In any case, the cavalry throughout the west mostly were used as dragoons.
Perhaps I'm making too great of an assumption here but the charge of Reno's unit was a classic cavalry action.I imagine Custer's intention was to do the same---deploy into line and charge.If his intention was to do that then he had the wrong weaponery.
If he was to use his carbines why did he not dismount deploy along the bluffs and use volley fire to support Reno---he could see the action?
Regarding the Boers, you've accused my sources as being inferior to yours, which are unnamed utterly
The Times History of the Boer War and many other tomes on the subject and having used the Lee-enfield .303 at ranges over 600 yards and seen the results.
This is what you said---Any army that could count on any arguable sort of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards has never remotely existed.I give you an example of accurate mass rifle fire at 800 yards and you now dismiss it as fish in a barrel exercise.If you knew anything about rifle fire you would know that it applies to engaging area targets as well as a point targets.
But to describe the Boers as a Field Army is ridiculous.
We are way off subject here but that nonsense just has to be addressed.That a force of over 12000 could occupy defensive positions employ artillery and other supporting arms and coordinate their actions over areas streaching for 20 miles and face a well drilled European army and not be described as a field army--really Black Cloud I'm losing faith in you.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 25 2004 : 3:22:03 PM
|
You missed the Burma mule analogy of last winter. That you can fire an Enfield with unknown results at 600 (or more) yards is somehow relevant to the question of the Boers firing Mausers at 800.
How much time and practice ammo would be required to get men accurate at that distance, provided that many of them even had the talent? But the Boers did, you're saying?
The 7th had their pistols, the right weapon.
Can't find reference to a Times History of the Boer War. Do you mean the 7 volume Times History of the South African War? An old work. Well, just give me one source that says Boers were, in general, good shots at 800 yards during the Boer War. I'm actually not finding an example of rifle fire at that distance during the conflict.
Nor am I finding any support for your views at all. Perhaps you could post some references?
from:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/8141/boerwar.html:
In October of 1899 the Boers, starting the war with the maxim 'the key to a good defense is a good offense', invade Natal and Cape Province and quickly invest three towns: Ladysmith, Mafeking, and Kimberley. This forces the British to abandon their original offensive plans in order to lift the sieges. The subsequent set-piece battles to free these cities only highlight the problems of the British Army. It is after achieving overwhelming superiority in the field that the British manage to lift the sieges and capture the capital cities of the two Boer republics in May/June, 1900.
Britain considers the war over. But the Boers have a long and proud tradition in South Africa and are not about to give up so easily. Some Boer commando units, the 'bitter-enders', escape into the vast bush country and for 2 more years continue to wage unconventional guerilla warfare by blowing up trains and ambushing British troops and garrisons. The British Army, unable to defeat the Boers using conventional tactics, adopt many of the Boer methods, and the war degenerates into a devastating and cruel struggle between British righteous might and Boer nationalist desperation. The British criss-cross the countryside with blockhouses to flush the Boers into the open; they burn farms and confiscate foodstuffs to prevent them falling into Boer hands; they pack off Boer women and children to concentration camps as 'collaborators'; they literally starve the commandos into submission. The last of the Boer commandos, left without food, clothing, ammunition or hope, surrender in May, 1902 and the war ends with the Treaty of Vereeniging.
The Boer War is a watershed event for the British Army in particular and for the British Empire as a whole. Their last European (i.e. white) opponents were the Russians in the the Crimean War (1853-56). Since then, for the previous 40 years, the Empire had been fighting ill-equipped and ill-organized (albeit brave) native forces. Easy victories made for an over-confidence that was quickly shattered by the opening battles in South Africa. The British generals had a difficult time adjusting to the different tactics of a different war. The Boers were a fast and highly mobile guerilla force, using the new smokeless cartridges in their German Mauser rifles which greatly concealed their positions; and they employed hit-and-run tactics that not only caused losses the British couldn't afford, but thoroughly frustrated the Empire's view of a 'fair fight'. As costs and casualties mounted, with the generals continually professing that the end was near, and the war taking a bitter and brutal twist in the last two years, British public opinion soured. Thus began the long slow decline of support for the Imperial idea. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 04:08:15 AM
|
Morning Dark Cloud
You missed the Burma mule analogy of last winter.
Sorry don't understand
That you can fire an Enfield with unknown results at 600 (or more) yards is somehow relevant to the question of the Boers firing Mausers at 800.
In discussing the pros and cons of the LBH I did say that because you had seen the battlefield you had the advantage of understanding the difficult terrain facing Custer.The same goes for experiencing the weapons used.To see how effective the colt/carbine was would be an enormous help to understanding the outcome of the battle.I mentioned the Lee-Enfield because it is a single shot magazine rifle not unlike the mauser of 1900.[In fact I think the Brits used the Lee-Metford rifle] and I have some experience of using it at long range and seeing the accuracy of it.
How much time and practice ammo would be required to get men accurate at that distance, provided that many of them even had the talent? But the Boers did, you're saying?
The Boers had already defeated the Brits in the first Boer War and what better practice did they need than yearly range practice on live Zulu targets?
The 7th had their pistols, the right weapon.
What was it after you fired off the 6 rounds?
Can't find reference to a Times History of the Boer War. Do you mean the 7 volume Times History of the South African War?
Yes----the recognised definitive work.Used as a primary source--contour maps,ranges,troop dispositions etc.
An old work.
On the contrary written within a year of the war---not depending on fading memories , evidence still on the ground and main players still alive.
Well, just give me one source that says Boers were, in general, good shots at 800 yards during the Boer War.
Well it would have to be a secondary source because the primary sources are all listed in the fatal casualty rolls But will when I get home this evening.
Nor am I finding any support for your views at all. Perhaps you could post some references?
First of all you write this---But to describe the Boers as a Field Army is ridiculous.
Then you post this The subsequent set-piece battles to free these cities only highlight the problems of the British Army.
Which is it to be Dark Cloud?you cant have it both ways either the Boers were a guerilla force or they were an orthdox field army capable of sustaining large numbers of troops in the field and conducting offensive and defensive operations.
I'm not saying that they were not forced to adopt guerilla tactics in the later stages of the war.
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 07:25:04 AM
|
Large mobs do not compose a Field Army. That they won set piece battles at first is not testement to anything but the Brits' incompetence. Was the Zulu a field army in the recent past? They fought and beat the Brits in set piece battles as well. And it's a quote, not my summation, with the reference provided. In any case, no recent work of which I'm aware refers to an actual Boer 'field army'. They had artillery and organized throngs.
All weapons have down sides, for goodness sake. You reload.
Your thesis that matching the weaponry to the terrain is, well, weird. Indians had essentially the same weapons.
The Zulu as targets is both tasteful and weak and we're still avoiding your 800 yard claim, aren't we?
Written within a year of the war and no doubt full of fabrications, vetted through the War Office. I haven't read it. Not about to. The British are only now making available the facts of WWI, a war in which they lied and fabricated extensively. I do know that the Boer War was a horrendoplasty and a serious embarrassment and it was a sore point for years within the Army, which still didn't learn much from it judging from their next performance. I do know the Army presented to the public a Boer Army Trained and Armed by the Kaiser (armed it was)and that's why.....etc. etc. Bunk. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 26 2004 : 09:21:40 AM
|
Large mobs do not compose a Field Army.
Calling the Boer Army a large mob would indicate that you have it on good authority that they were disorganised,lacking leadership ,ill disciplined,devoid of tactical/strategic awareness and all the skill needed to maintain a force in the field against a formidable foe.I can give you lists of battles to refute this claim.I await your examples with interest.
Was the Zulu a field army in the recent past?
Primitive but a field army under central control none the less.
In any case, no recent work of which I'm aware refers to an actual Boer 'field army'. They had artillery and organized throngs.
Perhaps at this stage it would be best if you could give us your definition of a "field army"
All weapons have down sides, for goodness sake. You reload.
Hold your horses there General Custer me bleedin gun is out of bullets
Your thesis that matching the weaponry to the terrain is, well, weird. Indians had essentially the same weapons.
Matching the weaponry to the tactics is my point.
The Zulu as targets is both tasteful and weak and we're still avoiding your 800 yard claim, aren't we?
Did you mean "distasteful"? well perhaps but the Boer and Zulu were in regular conflict.Homesteads had to be protected thus the Boer had very good reason to be very good marksmen.
Anyway give us a chance to get home and I will supply you with a list of ranges at which the boer engaged the Brits.
Written within a year of the war and no doubt full of fabrications, etc etc
You asked for my sources. I mention the main source and you dismiss it out of hand saying you have not read it--nice debating point.
Slan
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 2:34:57 PM
|
Ah. The Brits were not a formidable foe. They were a joke.
The Zulu were in the field till crops needed tending, and they left. They had no quartermaster corps, could not sustain themselves long in the field. They were not a field army. Neither were the Boers. When you get home is fine to provide the quotes. Odd nobody else I can find calls them a field army except a celebratory painting of Roberts receiving the Boer surrender, and that could be attributed to a reluctance to call it "Lord Roberts receives surrender of street gangs and comando leaders....."
I don't believe you've read the seven volumes either. I'm honest. It would be like reading Haig's bio and thinking it a worthy document of the Great War (although I had the misfortune...). The War Ministry allowed nothing to appear without its approval back then. How honest could it be?
No cavalry armed with swords is going to charge a greater number armed with guns or arrows. And win, anyway. It's not like the Sioux had a 'line' to receive the shock of the charge. The weaponry WAS matched to the tactics.
The Boers had need to be good marksmen but that's not the argument. You say they were, in the main, good marksmen at 800 yards. Ludicrous. Nobody had the time or money to practice that much even if the average weapon was that good.
No, tasteful was the chosen word. Sarcastic, ironic, quite British. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 8:54:14 PM
|
| At Beersheba, Palestine, October 31st 1917, the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigade with only their bayonets in their hands charged entrenched Turkish infantry and artillery and routed them. The charge was about 3 miles long. Occasionally a suprise mounted can win the day. Interestingly the Aussies were issued with sabres after this action but were never trained to use them but did so during the advance on Damascus. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 26 2004 : 10:15:05 PM
|
Aided somewhat, if I read correctly, by the rest of the 40k men under Allensby plus French and British naval fire and airplanes and the fact the Turks had one division and change to throw against all that. Also, horse artillery supported the charge along a lightly defended portion of the line.
Neither outnumbered nor outgunned. There are photos of it, though, and it looks pretty impressive, but it's disingenuous to suggest that mounted butter knives properly wielded can overcome machine guns, of which there could not have been many if the photos are truely of the charge. There are no casualty figures or mention of many, which seems to suggest not much opposition. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did Custer do anything right?
