I am looking for an area to discuss army history

This is the place to do it. Whatcha' got in mind?

Sure, what do you want to talk about?

Two hundred thirty two years of traditions, unimpeded by progress.

Speaking of that, did you know that the modern Infantryman carries more than the Union Infantryman of the Civil War?

Just found this, a yankee infantry carried away every thing he could get his hands on.and todays infantry soldier well?

Does anyone do military reenactment? I did WWII for a short while, but my unit disbanded. I haven't done any for a couple years and am wanting to get back into it and looking for a new unit.

quote:

Originally posted by Cavbunny:
Just found this, a yankee infantry carried away every thing he could get his hands on.and todays infantry soldier well?

I was reading Theodore Dodge's book Hannibal. If you know anything about Theodore Dodge, he was in the Union Army as an Infantry Private where he was injured in battle. When discussing the amount of gear a Roman Legionnaire carried, he mentioned the amount he carried in the Union Army in comparison. I don't have the exact book on hand so I can't give an exact number but it was around 60lbs. A modern infantryman carries far more than that.

Just placing my load from OSUT, which is probably far lighter than the real Battle Rattle:

IBA with SAPI plates(medium sized): 23.9 Pounds
M16A4 Rifle with M68: 8.5 Pounds
ACH (Medium) - 3.06 Pounds
Filled Camelbak - 8 pounds (we used canteens in OSUT but I am aware current soldiers used Camelbaks)

Now without a ruck, MOLLE Vest, ammunition, grenades, METT-TC required equipment we're up to 43.46 pounds. Seeing as the OSUT ruck by standards was supposed to equal 32 pounds, the weight carried by a modern infantryman far outweighs that of a Civil War infantryman.

Best officer corp that ever served was all in the American/ Mexican war.

Zachary Taylor,,,Windfield Scott...Steven Kearny....His nephew Phil Kearny...R.E.Lee.
James Longstreet, US.Grant..just come up with a name,,,they were ALL there.

quote:

Originally posted by YankeeeSgt:
Best officer corp that ever served was all in the American/ Mexican war.

Zachary Taylor,,,Windfield Scott...Steven Kearny....His nephew Phil Kearny...R.E.Lee.
James Longstreet, US.Grant..just come up with a name,,,they were ALL there.

Naa, WWII was the birth of the modern Army and the officer corps there was amazing, from Junior Grade to General Officers.

Dick Winter, Ronald Speirs, Omar Bradley, Courtney Hodges, Matthew Ridgeway, George Patton, James Gavin, Matthew Taylor, Norman Cota, Mark Clark, George Marshall, Audie Murphy. These men made the Army we have today.

quote:

Originally posted by GeraldM:

quote:

Originally posted by Cavbunny:
Just found this, a yankee infantry carried away every thing he could get his hands on.and todays infantry soldier well?

I was reading Theodore Dodge's book Hannibal. If you know anything about Theodore Dodge, he was in the Union Army as an Infantry Private where he was injured in battle. When discussing the amount of gear a Roman Legionnaire carried, he mentioned the amount he carried in the Union Army in comparison. I don't have the exact book on hand so I can't give an exact number but it was around 60lbs. A modern infantryman carries far more than that.

Just placing my load from OSUT, which is probably far lighter than the real Battle Rattle:

IBA with SAPI plates(medium sized): 23.9 Pounds
M16A4 Rifle with M68: 8.5 Pounds
ACH (Medium) - 3.06 Pounds
Filled Camelbak - 8 pounds (we used canteens in OSUT but I am aware current soldiers used Camelbaks)

Now without a ruck, MOLLE Vest, ammunition, grenades, METT-TC required equipment we're up to 43.46 pounds. Seeing as the OSUT ruck by standards was supposed to equal 32 pounds, the weight carried by a modern infantryman far outweighs that of a Civil War infantryman.

I was in the "light" Infantry in Vietnam, which naturally meant we carried more weight than mounted Infantry because we didn't have trucks. If it was something we needed, it had to be on our backs.

During the dry season, my combat load was well over 100 lbs and I was young enough to carry it without too much trouble.

I carried the M-60 machinegun (roughly 25 lbs), 600 rounds of ammo (roughly 25 lbs), 3 gallons of water (roughly 21 lbs), a case of C-rats (roughly 25 lbs), plus my bedroll, machete, ammo box of personal junk, the ruck itself, a steel pot and a bag of "world food" which probably weighed in at 10 lbs or so.

Of course, all this was right after re-supply, which we got every 4 days or so, and the weight fell off as time went by.

quote:

Originally posted by Cavbunny:
Just found this, a yankee infantry carried away every thing he could get his hands on.and todays infantry soldier well?

Today's Infantry soldier can't get a paper clip from Saddam's palace through customs.

What upsets me is that the people in charge of Heraldry and History don't seem to care. Units like the 308th Infantry (the Lost Battalion of World War I) should be kept alive. Who remembers Captain Holderman and K Company of the 307th. Read that CMH Citation.

I disagree.

The link between the old (19th Century)and the 20th Century comes down to one man. It was he who made the change from our previous hierarchy of regimental units of cavalry, infantry and artillery to the modern 'specialized staff' for Brigade, Division and Corps-sized units.

Previous to him, Majors, Lt Colonels and Colonels had no formal training for staff work in the modern sense. After him, American staff work became one of the most efficient logistical marvels in modern warfare.

He was the bridge between the horse cavalry of his youth where he served in the Wounded Knee campain and with the "Buffalo Soldiers" of the 10th Cavalry and those of concentrated indirect fire and manuever of modern tanks, planes and artillery. He served in the Old West, Siberia, the Phillipines, Cuba, Mexico and was the motivating force behind our entire WWI efforts.

He took an antiquated regional force smaller than that of Spain, modernized it in terms of staff organization, training and readiness and sent it to fight overseas in less than a single year. The time tables for rail and shiploading were so extensive and detailed they would serve as the basis for the movement orders to do it again nearly thirty years later.

He was idolized by the men who served with him and identified as "the coolest man I ever saw under fire" by no less than a Civil War veteran of Gettysburg who served as his commander. He remains one of the few officers ever mentioned by name by the President of the United States in an official address to Congress. He was a mere Captain at the time, despite nearly 18 years of active service.

Yet for all of that, he never served a day as a field grade officer (ranks of Major, Lieutenant Colonel or Colonel). Yet at the time of his death, he was the highest ranking officer to ever serve in the active military forces of the United States, outranked only by George Washington by virtue of an Act of Congress that was passed unanomously on the first ballot.



Give up?



General of the Armies John J. "Black Jack" Pershing. The best serving officer we ever had.

Could his sudden rise in rank have to do with his having married the daughter of the Secretary of the Army?

quote:

Originally posted by GeraldM:
Speaking of that, did you know that the modern Infantryman carries more than the Union Infantryman of the Civil War?

It has long been held that the optimum weight to be carried for extended periods without hinderence is 2/3 a persons weight. For an average man that equals around 60 Lbs. The French Army under Napolean traveled light and practiced the art of 'foraging' which meant taking all the food and supplies you needed from the locals. The Germans in WW2 did the same (check the pictures, how many time do you see a WW2 soldier with a backpack?) both got bit in the behind in Russia during Winter when that practice failed.
After Napolean, and based upon their North African experience, The French Army carried a heavier pack (check French WW1 pictures) because local supply was scarce in the desert.
The British stayed with a 60 Lbs average. The American Army adopted a "medically" designed pack that carried everything centerline to the spine but you could not sit down while wearing it because it extended well below the buttocks and had to be unpacked to remove any items.
With technology, the US Army wants you to have everything possible (for good reason) and wants items to accessible easily but the same rule still applies.
2/3 body weight is the optimum weight a person can carry for extended periods and still function without hinderence.
So it's either take only soldiers who can carry 150+ Lbs rucks and have a small Army.
Condition soldiers to carry overloaded rucks and endure the effects and abuses to their bodies (cannonfodder mentality? VA runaround when they suffer ill health effects later?)
Create giant soldier-piloted robots with mega death ray lasers so no one has to 'hump a ruck'?

I saw an article that said it would only take $180 to equip a World War II soldier, obviously the author did not price an M-1 Garand Rifle

Pershing's father-in-law wasn't Secretary of the Army at the time of his promotion, he was a Senator from Wyoming. The recommendations for Pershing to be promoted to General officer were started six months before he met his future wife (1903), and two years before his actual promotion by the President (1905). They were signed by three serving general officers who witnessed his actions in the Phillipines.

President Rooseveldt himself had known Pershing since the Battle of San Juan Heights and had first hand evidence of Pershing's ability as a combat leader. The practice of promotion in such a manner was not unheard of; Captain Leonard Wood had been promoted much in the same manner a decade before Pershing.

Of the criticism, Rooseveldt said:

quote:

"To promote a man because he married a Senator's daughter would be an infamy; to refuse him promotion for the same reason would be an equal infamy."

Sullivan013

Never the less he was the senior Captain in the Army and by modern standards would have been QId.
The Campaign against Pancho Villa got nowhere and we lost 150,000 men in three months of combat in France.

It could be argued that the campaign against Pancho Villa was equally successful as our current one against Osama Bin Laden. Both raided US territory and killed US Civilians and military personnel. Both were pursued yet remained uncaught for years. Are you suggesting that our current generals and soldiers are inadequate to the mission? Or is it that finding an illusive individual in foreign territory with minimal support from the host nation or society is an extremely difficult task? Pershing came incredibly close several times to actually capturing Villa,...without helicopters or real-time satellite images fo the battlefield

However, as with Al Queida today, Villa's operations were severely disrupted and he was on the run constantly, incapable of launching the same sort of raid. In that light, Pershing's operations aren't nearly as unsuccessful as they might seem at first glance.

As for the casualties on the Western Front in 1917, since every other major power lost soldiers at the same or higher rate, that alone is not a adequate measure of his achievement.

Besides, are you counting wounded? We only had 53,000 combat deaths for the entire war, 1917-18. There were more deaths to influenza among our soldiers (63,000).

A better method would be to look at the individual battles of the 2nd Marne, Chateau Thierry, and the Argonne. How did the US units do? Did the US divisions and corps-sized units operate on a equal footing with their allies? How about against the enemy formations? Were there any critical breakdowns in leadership, logistics or training of these rapidly organized units?

The answers are "quite well", "better than expected", "brilliantly" and "none at all."

This is Pershing's greatest acheivement. In 1916, our Army had only 127,000 men, with 80,000 in state militias. By the end of the war, we had over 3.7 million men in arms.

Secretary of War Baker told Pershing when he left the US: “I will give you only two orders, one to go to France and the other to come home. In the meantime, your authority in France will be supreme.”

Like I said, our success was due to him and his efforts.

Sullivan013