Americans

[Phillip Pournelle]

From Cavalry Regiments of the US Army by James Sawicki 1985

2nd Cavalry Regiment :
1 HQ Troop
1 Supply Troop
1 Machine Gun Troop
12 Rifle Troops

Each Troop (Company) had
4 Lewis Guns or 8 Automatic Rifles (Benet Mercier) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_ ... achine_gun)
6 Rifle Grenades
16 Grenadiers
4 Signalmen (flares, bugle, etc.)

Granted this was the TO&E around the time of the Pershing Expedition, but Sawicki (I'm recalling this, have to go look it up again) stated the Cavalry force was one of the better trained and equipped forces in the US Army at the opening of WWI.
Using the Great War ratio of 1:4, I proposed 2 Benet Mercier, 2 Rifle Genades, and 4 Grenadiers (Bombers) per Troop. Each Troop breaks down to 2-4 Platoons apiece.

[aecurtis]

"Yes, the order of battle and equipment I listed in my original post was based on the Pershing Expedition against Pancho Villa. In my posting I had the organization broken down to the Platoon level with the Benet Mercier Automatic Rifles, Grenadiers and grenade launchers at the Squardron level based on the books TO&E."

And that would be useful, if the presence of those weapons were confirmed by any other source as being present on the Western Front. In the case of the 2d US Cavalry, it's unclear what equipment was present. Most of the regiment was employed essentially as grooms and drivers for the AEF's transport animals. Only the provisional squadron mentioned above was configured as a combat formation.

What might be helpful to you is this:

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030724193

"However, Great War seems designed to compact Platoons into Squadrons for Cavalry."

There's a bit of garbling of cavalry in "Great War": for example, calling the larger British unit a battalion rather than a regiment. Gamers seem to get confused by cavalry organization: where infantry subordination is platoon-company-battalion, in the cavalry--US and British--it's troop, squadron, regiment.

But to do this AEF list right, it would seem important to recognize that the entire US cavalry force is only one squadron, commanded by a Lt. Col. (LTC), and the squadron consisted of three, notionally four, troops. The two main organizational problems with the posted list are that it reads:

"A Regiment Command group consists of an officer and 2 trooper. Typically a Major at a cost of 20pts, or a Lt. Colonel at
a cost of 50pts."

There should be no regimental command group, as only the single provisional squadron was used in combat.

"A Squadron consists of a Squadron Command Group and between 2 and 4 Troops.
The Troop Command Group consists of a Captain and 2 Troopers for 45 points.
A Cavalry Troop consists of 9 Troopers for 100 points."

If following the "Great War" model, "Troop Command Group" should be changed to "Squadron Command Group". The only question then would be whether to upgrade the squadron commander. In a British or US cavalry squadron, the commander should be a major (just as a British infantry company commander should be a major); troops were commanded by captains (see page 14 of the TO&E linked above). In the case of the 1d Cavalry's provisional squadron, he could be upgraded to lieutenant colonel in the specific case of Hazard.

Allen

[Phillip Pournelle]

Allen,
I'd like to have the force designed so it can be used for Great War and for the Pershing Expedition or the later Battle of Ambos Nogales. Perhaps notation would be required for each event.
Phil

[aecurtis]

Well, it's Happy Wanderer's AEF list, and he can do as he likes. It seems appropriate to me to only put in the AEF list what fought in the AEF.

A Pershing Expedition list (which could also cover Herman's force at Ambos Nogales, or any number of border skirmishes during the Mexican Revolution) would need to be structured quite differently than the AEF, I would think; not to mention the rather different adversaries, and the conflicts occurring on different continents.

I know: details, details...

Allen

[Phillip Pournelle]

So what does the entry for Automatic Machine Rifles from the Machine Gun Troop mean?

[aecurtis]

Ah, the provisional regimental machinegun troop, with no personnel authorized, having to be detailed from elsewhere within the regiment, at least in 1914.

http://books.google.com/books?id=-bJEAA ... q=&f=false

That's your Hotchkiss or Benet-Mercie: Benet-Mercie Machine Rifle, Caliber .30 U. S. Model of 1909.

Allen

[Phillip Pournelle]

HWander,
Please keep the asterix where I noted the additional equipment (grenades, rifle grenades, and auotomatic rifles) but change the notation to read only available for cavalry forces operating on the American continent (i.e. Expeditions into Mexico or border operations).

Curtis,
Is this a reasonable compromise?

Phil

[Phillip Pournelle]

Ah, the provisional regimental machinegun troop, with no personnel authorized, having to be detailed from elsewhere within the regiment, at least in 1914.

Allen

Under Cavalry Brigade for the machinegun troop it reads 1 Captain, 1 1st LT, 8 Seargents, 6 Corporals, 55 Privates and breaks down roles for them (horse holders, loaders, entrenchers, singanlmen, etc.)

What I don't understand is why you would need such an organization for a weapon designed to be a part of an infantry unit. This is a transportable light machine gun, not an HMG.

[aecurtis]

Sigh...

Footnote 2 shows the normal assigned duty positions for the provisional machinegun troop personnel, positions elsewhere in the regiment. Even the 1917 edition of the 1909 regulations suggests that only the officers and the four section leaders were permanently assigned by then. This was an organization that was in flux until they figured out what to do with it.

The Benet-Mercie wasn't "designed to be a part of an infantry unit", per se. It was a new sort of weapon, and it's clear that the Army was fumbling with concepts for both its tactical employment and its logistical support. Look at the regulations: they're generally the same for both cavalry and infantry--but the cavalry comes first! The provisional machinegun troop, like its infantry counterpart, is a robust organization, because in the days before HMMWVs and Bradleys, it took a lot of horses and mules to hump not only weapons, but ammunition, as well as other supplies--even in an infantry organization.

Remember George Armstrong Custer? Part of his failure was due to not having a well-organized supply train that could keep up and provide a continuous resupply of ammunition. Custer had a few civilian mule packers, supplemented (provisional organization again) by a bunch of kids drawn from the squadrons. Even though Custer had declined to take Gatlings, the carbine ammunition that the pack train carried could have made the difference at Greasy Grass (Little Big Horn), but it couldn't keep up. General Crook, having encountered a less disastrous setback at the Rosebud, ensured a better-organized pack train for his operations against Geronimo several years later, and it made a difference. (It fascinates me that generations of CGSC students have studied Crook as an example of how to conduct counterinsurgency warfare, yet the Army as a whole failed to consider the things he did well--but that's a different topic.)

Jump forward from 1876 to 1909, and you see a more mature concept of logistical organization even in a provisional organization. But it's mounted, and labor-intensive. Look through the regulations, and you'll read more about how to take care of mules than how to take care of the machineguns!

[Phillip Pournelle]

Allen,
You've made a fair enough point. Before my current assignment, I really didn't fully understand the implications of logistics and supply lines. In my previous assignment on a high speed vessel I gained some appreciation by doing a number of logistics missions. Before that my encounter with logistics was mostly grousing at the supply officer about parts I was waiting for. However, in my current assignment doing joint mobility analysis, I've gained a much greater appreciation. At first it appeared to be quite a bit of an organization for 4 LMGs, but from a perspective of how the heck you are going to deliver, maintain, and sustain much less employ them in a pre-mechanized environment, I see your point.
Phil

[aecurtis]

"Before that my encounter with logistics was mostly grousing at the supply officer about parts I was waiting for."

Come visit Barstow; talk with the missus. Let her explain the hoops you have to go through to get a propeller for a major surface combatant to Hawaii from the Mojave Desert! Or a propeller shaft that's too long to be shipped by truck (incredibly), so has to be sent by rail. (Not to Hawaii, obviously, but to the east coast, or the Gulf. Which begs the question of why the item manager for that shaft has it stored in the Mojave...)

Yep, this is just about that time in the career path--and it happens for all of us, if we don't start out as logisticians--when the old maxim about "amateurs studying tactics and professionals studying logistics" really strikes home. That's why generals (and admirals too, I assume) get to spend big chunks of their staff meetings getting briefed on the "eaches" of supply and maintenance issues, taking up lots more time than "simple" operational or intelligence issues.

I've been there, too: as maintenance officer in an ordnance company and XO in a tank company: running my little PLL (Prescribed Load List), a stock of parts at the company level, and waiting on the items we weren't authorized to stock. And then talking to my friend and neighbor, a quartermaster officer who ran the brigade ASL, a bigger stock of parts at that level--and neither one of us could figure out how it took so long to get a parts request from one end of the motor pool, where my shop was, to the other end where his office was!!! (That was over thirty years ago, and all manual, before MOWASP, DDS, and their predecessors.)

The missus is bending my ear reminding me that the Navy is *still* using an automated supply system that's different from the rest of DOD for some things. She started out with the Army as a civilian logistician, started working for the Navy when we moved out here twenty years ago, transitioned to DLA, then to contractors when the depot privatized. She's a trove of information!

Allen

[Phillip Pournelle]

Sigh...

Not getting enough sleep?

[Happy Wanderer]

Hi Allen, Phillip

Excellent work guys. You’ve both uncovered good info which is exactly the reason I’ve posted the list so those with specific detail can help get the list close to being accurate.

Reviewing the last few posts, I agree with Allen upon reading the info provided about cavalry ops in Europe - a full cavalry brigade is overstating the historical use for the US cav. Whilst a larger formation could’ve existed if the war had gone on longer, it did not so must be limited to what was available. I think making the list to encompass Mexican Expedition operations probably should form its own specific list along with OPFOR Mexican lists.

Hence, I think the list should be changed to show only a cavalry squadron is available for the US Army and no concentration beyond this seems reasonable.


Nice work gents,

Regards

HappyW

[aecurtis]

Which doesn't mean that one shouldn't also have a full cavalry regiment list, or mixed infantry and cavalry, to cover the Mexican Revolution.

Allen

[Happy Wanderer]

"Which doesn't mean that one shouldn't also have a full cavalry regiment list, or mixed infantry and cavalry, to cover the Mexican Revolution"

Agreed, but the list is for the AEF in Europe only. To include Mexican Revolution info would mean a complete going over of what was available for that period and that is not the intention of THIS list. However, it would naturally form the basis of such a list so is useful from that perspective.

HappyW

[Phillip Pournelle]

HWander,
Based on Allen's reference (http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030724193) a squadron consists of up to 400 trooper and officers containing up to 4 Troops of up to 100 troopers and officers apiece. Using Great Wars 4:1 ratio a Squadron should have up to 100 figures and a troop up to 25.

Phil

[Phillip Pournelle]

I recently received my copy of Over the Top and was glad to see American Cavalry in the US list but that they were armed with Carbines. Five minutes of research would reveal the US Mounted Cavalry was equipped with a Springfield Rifle, Colt Automatic Pistol, and a sword. The Springfield rifle fired the .3006 round (usually known as NATO 7.62mm) which had a range and velocity equal to or greater than the British .303

This was disapointing... So I guess I should employ the British Cavalry list. In the point formulas, how much does adding a pistol to a figure cost?

[Orange Dave]

Adding a lance is +1 point. Theres little difference in impact between a unit of lancers charging, or a unit firing pistols then charging with swords. If the targets in the open, lances are a bit better. If the targets in cover, pistols are a bit better.

So go for +1 point.