| Author |
 Topic  |
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 27 2004 : 06:44:42 AM
|
Ah. The Brits were not a formidable foe. They were a joke.
The Boer use of the modern rifle and mobility made the Brit victorian military system defunct.What made the Brits formidable was their overwhelming industrial and numerical strenght.
The Zulu were in the field till crops needed tending,
Come on Black Cloud let's get the basics right.The Zulu were not farmers they were cowboys.
Odd nobody else I can find calls them a field army
It is not a commonly used term.But my definition of it is---an orthodox military force of manoeuvre[As opposed to garrison or guerilla forces]
In reference to engagements at long range.This from "The weapons and battles of the 2nd Anglo-Boer War.
Additionally, the Mauser had more slightly elaborate sights; graded out to 2000 meters compared to the 1829 meters of the Lee-Metford, this meant that the Mauser was more likely to perform better at long-range shooting than the Lee-Metford
Time and time again, British advances against Boer trenches ground to a halt between 500 and 800m from their objectives due to the highly accurate rifle fire being directed against them
I don't believe you've read the seven volumes either. I'm honest.
And you would be right.I'v read the sections on the military engagements and I have to say if you are into military history this work is brilliant.The only work that I'v enjoyed as much is the 3 vols of the American Civil War can't recall the name of the author.It was written as a narritive and I could not put it down.
But bear with me for a minute while I relate the story of how I came aquire the "Times History"[I have the original, 100 years old]I was 10 years old many moons ago and was sick with something or other.
I was lying in bed reading my Superman and Tubby and Lulu comics [you would not remember those Black Cloud]when a friend of mine called in and offered to swop the comics with me for some old war books his father had.I said ok and after seeing the great maps and pictures in them agreed to part with my comics.So for a few comics I got my hands on what are now very valuable tomes
Mean while back at the LBH---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 point is they would never be faced with more than a small fraction of disorganised Indians.If as you say these raw troopers could not use a sabre how do you expect them to reload at the gallop.
I tell you one thing it would be a brave man who would lead those troopers from out in front with them tumbing off rounds in all directions.
Back to South Africa-----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.
Given their background.They were not civilians in the accepted sense, they were armed settlers/huntsmen living in a hostile envoirment.Firearms and horses were second nature to them.Now take a man with that background and give a few weeks of action and you got yourself a superb soldier.As regards musketry in battle most targets are going to be area targets not individuals.
No, tasteful was the chosen word. Sarcastic, ironic, quite British.I can live with sarcastic and ironic but British....ugh please I think the admin man frowns on the use of abuse
Regards
|
  |
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 09:32:11 AM
|
Geez Dark Cloud, it's a heck of a naval gun that can throw a shell 50km inland which is where Beersheba is. It's lucky they had that support. Actually it was more like 60 000 British infantry who were unable to take the town so someone on the Turkish side put a fight. The charge was a last ditch effort to take the town by nightfall with it's water wells intact. I should have explained myself better. I was trying to show that suprise and a bit of imagination sometimes turns the tide. The Lighthorse were mounted infantry and they were identified as such. Thus the Turks expected them to dismount and charge on foot, instead they had a full on mounted charge to deal with and were overwhelmed. The Turkish artillery couldn't adjust their range quickly enough because of the suprise factor. And as for their butter knives, have you ever seen the British issue bayonet of the First world war? It has a blade more akin to a Roman Gladius than anything else. And the casualty figures are quite well documented if you care to look them up. 31 dead and 36 wounded with 70 horses killed. Every Turkish rifle found afterwards was set on 1500 metres so as the charge neared it's objective the Turks were firing high.
I think you do the Boers and men of the Aussie Light Horse a disservice. They were for the most part farmers who had ridden horses and handled firearms since they were old enough to walk. The big difference between the Australian Light Horse and the cavalry arms of the more established armies is that you had to be able to ride and shoot to get in rather than being taught to ride and shoot. Thus it attracted country men who had shot for the pot all their lives. I have heard that many of them could shoot accurately up to a 1000 yards on open sights. I imagine the Boer farmers could do the same. Overlay some military dicipline on those life long skills and you get a formidable soldier.
Every male Boer farmer between 16 and 60 was required to have his own horse, saddle, bridle, his own rifle and cartridges and provisions for 8 days in the field. They were organized into commandos which ranged in size from several hundred to several thousand. They were described by one journalist as a "motley looking" group of fighters. However their artillery was trained by German officers and they had modern German Krupp and French Creusot batteries which outranged British guns. The Boer mounted infantryman was skilled at concealment on the veldt and could pick off advancing infantry with ease often using preset white stones as range markers. They could then jump on their horses and leave the area before heavier forces could be brought to bear.
They were obviously a pretty solid foe and took some beating. I would much rather have ridden into the valley of the Little Big Horn with a Boer Commando than with Custer's boys. There may have been a better chance of getting out alive. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 09:40:27 AM
|
I would much rather have ridden into the valley of the Little Big Horn with a Boer Commando than with Custer's boys. There may have been a better chance of getting out alive.
Well said that man |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 11:07:32 AM
|
I didn't condemn the 'fighting qualities' of the Anzacs or the Boers as individuals, and you're correct the Boers would have been better at the LBH than what the 7th fielded. All true. And they whupped the British early on. But the British weren't, in any sense, very good back then.
The original issue was cavalry charges against modern weapons, and the original post declined to mention that it wasn't just the cavalry but artillery as well. I didn't look on the map or range naval guns, but the point was the cavalry was part of a large integrated force and the outnumbered Turks had their attentions concerned over a huge area.
None of which applies to LBH.
We know surprise can turn the tide, although the Allies rode with it, and whether it was two handed claymore or a buttur knife isn't really the issue. The Turks apparently panicked and fled. We also know that cavalry had its devoted backers beyond all sense, and that they made big deals out of minor incidents to keep the cavalry in the modern army. Lot of unnecessary deaths and expense ferrying horses around the oceans.
I've heard Davy Crockett could hit a gnat's eye at a mile......come on. I'm sure someone could do it, but sizeable numbers?
The Brits, like the Americans, never panic in these histories, never run in fear, break down. They come to stops because of the superior weaponry of the enemy, who I don't doubt were better shots. Like the Americans made a big deal out of the 'tactics' of the Sioux, to the point they made up stories of how he graduated from West Point (too bad he hadn't), the British inflated the qualities of the Boers because their parade ground military wasn't up to the task. During these years naval exercises didn't include firing guns that would blemish paint jobs.
I think it was you I confused with Inwit; you've not been to the field, right? Also, I recall well those comics. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
 Posted - May 27 2004 : 12:29:37 PM
|
The Brits, like the Americans, never panic in these histories, never run in fear, break down.
Wrong again Dark Cloud.Read your times history,it describes how the famed Highland Brigade decimated and demoralised by Boer rifle fire fled in terror when the Boer artillery dropped a few rounds of HE among them.
But you would describe that as fabrication by the military who wanted an increase in their toilet paper issue.
I've heard Davy Crockett could hit a gnat's eye at a mile......come on
Bet you got that from the same source that told you the Zulu were farmers. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 27 2004 : 5:06:52 PM
|
Obviously there will be exceptions, but my experience with British and American histories supports it in the majority of cases. I am interested in your example, though. It says the Brits ran or that they were trampled by native troops who panicked, which is the usual way they get around it? There's generally an exculpatory excuse or eight for the reader's benefit.
Zulu cattle raised by the men, the women planted. I somehow don't see calling them 'farmers' is such a horror. I don't believe 'cowboy' is a term applied to them, or anyone. A quote:
"And as was taking place throughout Nguni territory, Zulu built his homestead according to the traditional blueprints. The layout proscribed a central, circular cattle-fold with the pole-and-thatch 'beehive' huts of family members and retainers arranged in a crescent at the higher end of a sloping piece of land. Hut floors were a densely compacted mixture of ant- hill sand and cow-dung, polished to resemble a dark green marble. Small, irregularly shaped fields for planting grains and vegetables were identified nearby and protected from animals with interlaced thorn- branch hedges. Homesteads were thus self-sufficient entities." This from http://zululand.kzn.org.za/zululand/about/
Let's see. Homesteads. Permanent fields. Grains, vegetables. Cattle most important, yes, but if that is the criteria Hindu India is composed of cowboys. Zulu not cowboys, and it's not wrong to call them farmers. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 05:28:59 AM
|
Obviously there will be exceptions, but my experience with British and American histories supports it in the majority of cases
Obviously your reading did not include the defeat of 125000 men of the British army in Malaya/Singapore by a Jap army of 50000.
I am interested in your example, though. It says the Brits ran or that they were trampled by native troops who panicked, which is the usual way they get around it? There's generally an exculpatory excuse or eight for the reader's benefit.
Not at Magersfontein no excuses.
[From memory]The British made a night approach to their start line.The intention being that after a softening up by their artillery they would be in an ideal position to launch a bayonet charge.
However when dawn came up to their horror they found that they had stopped hundreds of yards short of their objective.The view from the Boer trenches must have been unbeliveable.Brigades of British troops lined up out on the open plain as if they were on the parade ground.They were mown down in droves.Their only option was to take whatever cover the open plain offered and there they lay in the blazing sun being picked off one by one.Beaten and demoralised they started to retreat, at first in small groups then whole battalions.The Boers then trew a few rounds of HE into them and what was a retreat became a headlong flight in panic.
Hut floors were a densely compacted mixture of ant- hill sand and cow-dung.
In order to spare everyone a discussion on the pros and cons of cow-dug I'll conceed the point to you.
Regards
|
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 08:43:28 AM
|
Sorry, didn't mean to help put this thread way off topic. Just wanted to add that I also wasn't trying to build the Aussies up into supermen. They had the highest desertion rate of any army on the Western Front in WW1. The Aussie 53rd battalion ran when confronted by an inferior Japanese force at the battle of Isurava in Papua and our 8th Division went into the bag on Singapore as well. In fact the Japs landed on an Aussie Brigade defending Singapore Island and practically walked through them.
Dark Cloud, I'm glad I don't have to argue with you in the flesh. I enjoy your posts. Keep it up. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 09:02:46 AM
|
Hi Benteens Brother,
If we don't stray a little off topic this LBH discussion will terminate farely soon.
What was that one about the Brit staff officer who asked some Aussie troops who had just arrived at the front "men have you come here to die" only to get the reply "no we came here yesterdie"
Yeh I agree Dark Cloud's posts are worth getting up at 6am in the morning for.
Ga die Mate |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 10:39:38 AM
|
Again, I'll wait for the quotes from the book.
Singapore's surrender was one of the great coverups, and far more interesting than LBH. To this day, nobody can explain it. The histories I've read don't have a reason that makes sense. The Brit's and their native troops (who absorb a lot of official blame) seem to have been betrayed by their commander more than their own failings. That and the Jap Army was damned good. The sinking of the POW and Repulse probably was the last straw to morale.
It is informative to compare the immediate stories of the surrender up to the mid sixties to the ones after when the books opened. I have never read anything that was available to the public that spoke ill of the military in Britain till years after the fact. This until recently, but even in the Falklands you had the residue of that mindset. So I'll be interested in the actual quotes and have to take your word on it 'cause I'll be damned if I'm going to read a seven volume anything, much less on the Boer War. Churchill had less on the Second World War. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 2:01:14 PM
|
have never read anything that was available to the public that spoke ill of the military in Britain
Ya want to see the stuff we wrote about them.Ya know we had that bugger Percivill here and nearly plugged him on more than one occasion.Thank God we missed and he lived to deliver Singapore and 125000 troops up to the Japs and when the Poms get hign and mighty all we have to do is mention Singapore.
I'll be interested in the actual quotes and have to take your word on it 'cause I'll be damned if I'm going to read a seven volume anything, much less on the Boer War
And I'm damned if I'm going to research every conflict just to entertain you.Giving you facts is like trowing buns to a bear.
Have a nice weekend
|
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 2:10:39 PM
|
If any nation got kicked around by their mother country, it was Australia. I consider it, after WWI and Gallipoli, an act of kindness for them to believe a single word the Brits said. Which is to say, don't be too hard on them. It's not like the Brits gave them a lot to fight for. Different facing invasion, I admit, but overall I've read they fought the Owen Stanley campaign extremely well and were the troops the Japanese were least thrilled about facing.
Again, MacLeod's Theory Regarding Histories of Military Combat - Something He Has Never Seen Thanks Be To God But Read A Lot About For Odd Reasons:
"When reading military history you will be happier and closer to the inevitable truth if, rather than thinking the implausible best, you start by thinking both sides fought badly, with significant numbers only making a show of it, that officers made numerous mistakes followed by intensive efforts to pat it into favorable shape, a great many casualties and deaths were caused by friendly fire, and if a victory was achieved it was in spite of and not because of the commander. Further, realize everyone undergoes periods of heroism and cowardice in various measures like manic/depression, vitality and exhaustion, and it is silly to choose one incident of either to represent the individual."
Then each action revealed as honorable and heroic stands out more. Most, however, come close to my theory in the memories of those that were there.
As a result of NOT following my dictates (sigh), but rather the opposite, the world now presents every military unit not involved with staplers or traffic cones as 'elite,' and their inevitable history of bad or non-performance becomes an unnecessary puzzle.
The Seventh Cavalry of 1876 is sometimes called 'elite.' Terrifying, if true. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 6:33:38 PM
|
Didn't someone once describe war as 'organised kaos'. Everything I've read about warfare seems to indicate this is true. I haven't read as much about the LBH as many here have but it always has seemed to me that Custer wasn't himself. Yes he was overconfident but that was nothing new. He just seems to have made a lot of errors of judgement once he was in contact with the enemy.
Bryan Perret in his book 'Last Stand' states that it would have been a hard job for the entire US army at the time to achieve what Custer was trying to achieve. Maybe that's overstating it but there may be some merit in it. The lack of co-ordination of the attack on the village was Custer's biggest mistake. He may not of won but surely he may have saved the better part of his regiment. I think Reno and Benteen did the best they could to survive with what they had. Just my humble thoughts which don't count for much.
Wild I ,there's lots of funny stories about Aussie soldiers and British generals. I have a historian friend who is writing a history on the AIF 11th battalion of WW1. He has some terrific stories collected along the same lines as the one you told. And that's just one battalion!
And Dark Cloud, the Owen Stanley campaign was Australia's finest hour. Outnumbered, outgunned, let down badly by the senior generals involved ( Macarthur and Blamey), unfairly labelled as cowards yet still getting the job done. There's a great book called 'Those Ragged Bloody Heroes' which tells their story. Inspired me to walk the Kokoda trail a few years back. Seeya later. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 28 2004 : 6:53:58 PM
|
Um, Wild, it's one (1) conflict and one (1) battle about which I'd like a quote that you (you) had previously offered and which my therapist says you have to honor because of my delicate sensibilities having to do with issues like 'trust' and 'annoyance' and 'deep seated conviction WildI makes stuff up' because......well, just because. The 800 yard Boer marksmen, etc.
This is a long weekend. Our memorial day. The eleven people who actually celebrate it may be joined by a few more at the dedication of the surprisingly nice WWII memorial on the Mall in Washington. It isn't our finest hour, honoring the dead. Of course, the war will bring it up in numbers, but we don't have a huge turnout anymore. But then, the voting that they fought for doesn't get our attention either. It's such a bother, apprarently. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 12:56:42 PM
|
m, Wild, it's one (1) conflict and one (1) battle about which I'd like a quote that you (you) had previously offered and which my therapist says you have to honor because of my delicate sensibilities having to do with issues like 'trust' and 'annoyance' and 'deep seated conviction WildI makes stuff up' because......well, just because. The 800 yard Boer marksmen, etc.
Yar a terrible man Dark Cloud but just to humour you [this once] I'll do the research.
Just on the subject of long range shots I saw in a small booklet that a friend brought back from the LBH that a Sioux was sent to the happy hunting ground by a Reno trooper firing from a range of 400 yards.Did you ever hear mention of this.
the Owen Stanley campaign was Australia's finest hour.
To my eternal shame I have nerer heard of it.Any more info?
Easy |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 3:47:54 PM
|
The Owen Stanleys are the mountains in, I think, New Guinea or Papua and during the War Anzacs or just Aussies were sent out in miserable conditions to tackle the as yet unbeaten Japanese. This was the west end of the Japanese campaign to capture northern Australia and Guadalcanal ended up the big battle for the US on the eastern end. Horrible, awful battle for you guys, and you now had the joy of being treated as badly by the Americans as by the Brits.
What research? You were paraphrasing from the book, which suggests you know where it is, and I just want the quotes (not volumes of them) to see if the Brits are damned for failure OR, as I suspect, there's exculpatory tales and fables that actually blame someone else. Then quotes about mass accuracy at 800 yards. You're probably the only person in the world who has that seven volume horror and so you're stuck with the job at your convenience, by which I mean my convenience, which means soon, before Short Attention Span Theatre opens here on the forum. You're doing it for free so you have no cause to complain....
The guys, Ryan and French, brought their own rifles which both had telescopic sights, something that would allow such great shooting as the Boers are credited, but which few if any had. I don't know if they hit a damned thing, but apparently the Indians cleared out from Sharpshooter Hill under the fusilage. Ryan also wants us to know that he fired the last shot at the Indians as they moved away. I'm rather surprised he wasn't killed by the 7th for doing something that, had he hit someone, might have annoyed enough Sioux to putter back to finish them off. I rather doubt the tale, actually. In any case, the Indian was not as well equipped with his rifle or carbine, so he was the better shot having assuredly killed soldiers. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
El Crab
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 8:08:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
The guys, Ryan and French, brought their own rifles which both had telescopic sights, something that would allow such great shooting as the Boers are credited, but which few if any had. I don't know if they hit a damned thing, but apparently the Indians cleared out from Sharpshooter Hill under the fusilage. Ryan also wants us to know that he fired the last shot at the Indians as they moved away. I'm rather surprised he wasn't killed by the 7th for doing something that, had he hit someone, might have annoyed enough Sioux to putter back to finish them off. I rather doubt the tale, actually. In any case, the Indian was not as well equipped with his rifle or carbine, so he was the better shot having assuredly killed soldiers.
I've always thought the same thing. Seems ridiculously stupid to fire potshots at the Indians as they departed. It'd be similar to getting pulled over by a cop, given a warning and then flipping the cop off as he pulled away.
Some of the soldiers believed the village was leaving and the warriors would come back, either to continue the fight or to wait for them to leave the hill for water and/or let their guard down and wipe them out. But even then, why push your luck by firing at them as they left? If they weren't planning on doing this, their minds might be changed if a warrior, non-combatant or even a few ponies were dropped.
I think, if it really happened and Sgt. Ryan wasn't a complete moron, he fired in their direction but nowhere close enough to hit anything. It probably made Ryan and the men feel a smidge better, even if it was just for show. Or maybe he was just a complete moron and willing to doom his comrades by inciting the Sioux. |
I came. I saw. I took 300 pictures. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 9:15:43 PM
|
As the exodus of ferocious warriors marched away, the beleaguered troopers were overcome with a collective sigh of relief at being spared the horrible death so many of their brothers suffered. It's such a human gesture to cast a final volley at those who deprive you of your pride and dignity, who so completely defeated you.
When the danger no longer exist, when I know I will live, then and only then, I may be tempted to cast the last stone out of sheer frustration. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - May 29 2004 : 10:01:52 PM
|
Dumb if it happened, but Ryan always struck me as a pig-headed sort. Didn't he once "order" one of his privates to desert after the guy pissed him off somehow? There was an article about this a few years ago in one of the CBHMA symposium books; I think by Brian Pohanka, on the 7th Cavalry's discipline. I'm uncertain because I can't locate my copy. Bhist might know what I'm talking about.
R. Larsen
|
|
|
|
benteens brother
Corporal
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 12:25:04 AM
|
| Wild I, search for Kokoda Trail or Owen Stanley campaign on the net and you should come up trumps. Plenty of good books written too. Peter Brune has written some great stuff and Lex McCauley wrote 'Blood and Iron- The Battle for Kokoda' which is a bit heavier but has a Japanese perspective too. |
|
|
|
bhist
Lt. Colonel
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 01:14:47 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous Poster8169
Dumb if it happened, but Ryan always struck me as a pig-headed sort. Didn't he once "order" one of his privates to desert after the guy pissed him off somehow? There was an article about this a few years ago in one of the CBHMA symposium books; I think by Brian Pohanka, on the 7th Cavalry's discipline. I'm uncertain because I can't locate my copy. Bhist might know what I'm talking about.
R. Larsen
Anonymous Poster8169 -- you’re correct. At my 1995 symposium, Pohanka presented, “A Study of Company Discipline: General Courts-Martial of Enlisted Personnel, 7th U.S. Cavalry, 1875-1876."
However, it was not true that Ryan asked a private to desert. Private Frederick Trapaud deserted French’s Company M. Trapaud’s lame excuse was he claimed 1st Sgt John Ryan ordered him to desert! He also claimed Ryan ordered him to do many other things, too – all just as unbelievable. So, Ryan did not order the private to desert.
|
Warmest Regards,
Bob
www.vonsworks.com
www.friendslittlebighorn.com
www.friendsnezpercebattlefields.org |
Edited by - bhist on May 30 2004 01:16:50 AM |
|
|
|
dave
Captain
Australia
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 05:07:19 AM
|
Wild:
The early period of fighting in New Guinea (involving Australian forces) is usually known as the Kokoda Trail. As DC points out, the Owen Stanley's are the range of mountains which form the spine of eastern New Guinea. The Japanese landed on the northern shores of the peninsula, and attempted to cross the Owen Stanley mountains to support an amphibious landing at Milne Bay, with the eventual intent of capturing Port Moresby. They were finally fought to a standstill by Australian forces on the Kokoda Trail which traverses the Owen Stanley's. Many of the Aussie soldiers were reservists - disparaging referred to as "choco's" by the veteran troops who had served in the campaigns in North Africa and the Middle East. The "choco" nickname (which inferred that they would melt before the Japanese as chocolate melts in the sun) was a contemptuous reference to the fact that the reservists were conscripts, while the forces who fought overseas were all volunteers (conscripts could legally only be forced tp fight on Australian soil). In case you are wondering - Papua New Guinea was considered Australian territory, so the reservists were't technically fighting "overseas".
On the subject of long range shooting, allegedly one extraordinaryly unfortunate Indian was sent to the happy hunting grounds at a distance of 7/8th's of a mile (approx. 1500 yards). I have absolutely no idea whether the story is myth or reality. But if you are interested, you can read about Billy Dixon's long shot at the battle of Adobe Walls here
http://www.lrml.org/longrange/history05.htm
and here
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/3975/billdixo.html
|
|
|
|
Brent
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 06:46:20 AM
|
Wild1:
That 400 yard shot--if true--was probably the luckiest shot of the day. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - May 30 2004 : 11:33:19 AM
|
Ah HAH! Dave has saved WildI from extensive sessions with index cards, typing, analysis, to culminate in a bound pdf file for the board on the issue of whether Boers were great shots and because of their individual sharpshooting skills could routinely hit targets at 800 yards.
Ah hem. No, you don't have to stand. Just nod in reverence as the hammer falls......
"Experience on the wide plains of India, North and South Africa suggested that at ranges far beyond any possible ability of a marksman to strike an individual target, entire platoons or companies firing volleys could blanket an area target with fire. For this purpose an additional sight known as the Collective Sight was fitted to the left side of the fore-stock. It was graduated to 2,800 yards allowing a further 800 yards over the normal barrel sight which was limited to 2,000 yards."
Hence, as it continues, with this rifle (and one assumes, in the Boers' Mauser) an actual second sight for long range volley fire allowed a blanket of fire over a broad area. This means volley firing at the area, not at the targets per se. It doesn't give estimates of hits vs. shots fired, but it explains Brit losses without relying on legions of Natty Bumpos and sniperscopes. To repeat: "...far beyond any possible ability....."
There! Note that the fact I had not clue one such sights existed or volley fire was used like that at that distance is cleverly concealed by my confident and overbearing demeanor, so much so I don't even have to be parenthetical. He'll never know.....Aussies never do.
I win! (Let's stay on message, here...) I win AGAIN! (Too much? Dial it down...) ARhahahahahah....cough.....haha...
More coffee...... |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Did Custer do anything right?
