Categories
Leadership of the highest kind Manly Stuff Soldiering War

Haile Selassie: Ethiopia’s Wise Wartime Emperor by Will Dabbs

When SCCY Firearms introduced their inexpensive striker-fired handgun, they called it the DVG-1. What not just everybody knew was that DVG stood for “Davis Versus Goliath.” Israel’s King David was one of the most compelling figures in human history.

Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie.
This is Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie. Once turned out, he was quite the dashing figure. (Photo/Public domain)

Most folks know at least the rudiments of the story. David was just a kid, likely barely even a teenager, when he faced down the nine-foot Philistine giant Goliath. Per the Biblical narrative, David used his shepherd’s sling to brain the guy in the forehead with a rock before decapitating him with his own sword.

David and Goliath
The story of David and Goliath is a timeless tale that transcends both history and faith. (Photo/Public domain)

When David was preparing for this epic battle, he selected five smooth stones from a modest creek near the Valley of Elah, some 15 miles west of Bethlehem. I’ve actually picked up a few similar rocks in that very spot myself. The joke at the time was that the Israeli government likely came out every couple of weeks with a front loader full of gravel just to keep the place stocked up for visitors. Tradition holds that David picked five stones because Goliath had four brothers.

David’s life is a powerful example of redemption. David was a rock star. However, he had an affair with a married woman named Bathsheba, murdered her husband, and subsequently got caught. Their first son perished as a result.

David subsequently repented before the Lord and was forgiven. Despite the grievous nature of his sin, he was nonetheless still described as a man after God’s own heart. I take encouragement from that myself. The David and Bathsheba’s second son was named Solomon. Scripture claims Solomon was the wisest man who ever lived.

painting with The Queen of Sheba
The Queen of Sheba was said to be quite the looker.(Photo/Public domain)

Rulers came from all over the world to sit before Solomon and bask in his knowledge. One of those leaders was the Queen of Sheba. The Land of Sheba included modern-day Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Yemen.

One of countless unsubstantiated legends to have spawned from the Biblical narrative holds that Solomon and this visiting queen exchanged more than just pleasantries. The book of I Kings reports that Solomon already had 700 wives and 300 concubines. I simply cannot imagine. Keeping just my one wife happy seems like a full-time job to me. Regardless, this extra-Biblical tale proposes that the queen became pregnant by Solomon and eventually gave birth to a son known as Menelik I. The queen then supposedly raised the boy back home as a pious Jew. Now, hold that thought….

The Man

In the mid-1930s, fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini harbored aspirations to resurrect the greatness of Imperial Rome. Mussolini subsequently had designs on most of the Mediterranean Sea. In 1935, his first major conquest was Ethiopia. Ethiopia was led at the time by Emperor Haile Selassie.

Haile Selassie
Haile Selassie certainly had his fans around the world. (Photo/Public domain)

Born in 1892, Selassie reigned over Ethiopia from 1930 through 1974. History recognizes Selassie as an enlightened reformer. Like all public figures, however, his actual legacy was mixed. While lauded for such stuff as a new freedom-centric Constitution in 1931 and the abolition of slavery eleven years later, he was nonetheless still criticized for the repression of human rights among certain ethnic groups and a failure to modernize quickly enough. Nobody’s perfect, but he was Time Magazine’s Man of the Year in 1935.

Desperation Nation

Ethiopia had beaten Italy during the First Italo-Abyssinian War, which ran from 1895 through 1896. By the mid-1930s, Mussolini remained quite butthurt over that. In October of 1935, the fascist dictator set out to make things right.

At the time, Italy was a world-class military power, while Ethiopia remained fairly primitive. Overall troop strength was about the same, but the Italians had the Ethiopians lyrically outmatched in combat power. Ethiopia fielded four tanks and seven armored cars against some 700 modern Italian armored vehicles. Italy outnumbered Ethiopia ten-to-one in artillery. Ethiopia possessed thirteen military aircraft against 595 Italian combat planes. This was shaping up to be a proper bloodbath.

The Emperor Responds

It is in moments of desperation that the true measure of a man’s character is exposed. When things looked darkest for Volodymyr Zelensky and the Russians were pouring across his national borders, President Biden offered him the use of an American helicopter to whisk him and his family to safety. Zelensky famously responded with, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride.”

 Haile Selassie's 1935 mobilization order.
This was Haile Selassie’s 1935 mobilization order. It is a study in succinct wartime administration. (Photo/Public domain)

As the Italians mobilized to seize his nation, Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie had a similar defining moment. With his military teetering and the option of capitulation on the table, Selassie issued the following proclamation:

“Everyone will now be mobilized…All men and boys able to carry a spear will be sent to Addis Ababa. Married men will take their wives to carry food and cook. Those without wives will take any woman without a husband. Women with small babies need not go. Those blind, those who cannot walk or for any other reason cannot carry a spear are exempted. Anyone found at home after receipt of this order will be hanged.”

That sums things up nicely.

How Goes the War?

The Ethiopians never really had a chance. They nonetheless still fought like lions in the face of crushing opposition. There had been an arms embargo enacted by the major powers, including France and the UK. This disproportionately affected the Ethiopians, given their lack of indigenous manufacturing capability. Despite the relative parity in raw troop numbers, only about one in four Ethiopians had any formal military training. Many were armed with nothing more than a spear or bow. What rifles they did have were often antiquated, as were their few artillery pieces.

italian troops.
Italian troops were both well-trained and well-equipped when compared to their Ethiopian adversaries. (Photo/Public domain)

Selassie’s forces fielded some 1,150 machine guns of various sorts. Curiously, in an effort to influence Anglo-Italian relations and cause a rift between the UK and France, the Germans sent the Ethiopians three combat planes, 10,000 Mauser rifles, and 10 million rounds of ammunition. It was only later that Mussolini and Hitler became BFFs. It was obviously a complicated time.

As is so often the case, a well-funded but overmatched power leaned on mercenaries to flesh out its military machine. The Ethiopian Air Force was commanded by a Frenchman. Professional soldiers from the US, Nazi Germany, Sweden, Russia, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, and Trinidad all came together to advise and command Ethiopian troops. Italian commanders later attributed Ethiopia’s battlefield successes to the influence of these soldiers for hire.

The Conflict Matures

The Italians attacked along several axes and made some modest early gains. Two weeks into the campaign, Italian troops seized Aksum and stole its historical obelisk. This they sent to Rome for display in front of the Ministry for Colonies.

Frustrated by his troops’ slow progress, Mussolini sacked his commander, Marshal Emilio De Bono, and replaced him with General Pietro Badoglio. Badoglio later became Prime Minister of Italy after the fall of the fascists in 1943.

ethiopia's people.
The Ethiopians had no shortage of elan. However, that couldn’t make up for their lack of tanks and combat aircraft.(Photo/Public domain)

Despite the enthusiasm of the Ethiopian forces, the technological superiority of the Italian Army gradually prevailed. In the absence of radios, the Ethiopians relied upon foot messengers for communication. In the face of a modern army, such stuff as this sealed their fate.

The Italians were absolutely barbarous in their prosecution of this war, something that served as a preview for what was to come in World War 2. In response to an assassination attempt against General Rodolfo Graziani, Italian forces massacred as many as 30,000 Ethiopian civilians. The primitive nature of the battlefield made verification of numbers unreliable. The Italians also deployed mustard gas against both military and civilian targets. Hundreds of thousands of Ethiopian civilians perished.

The Christmas Offensive

Around Christmas of 1935, Haile Selassie took personal command of his troops and launched an aggressive counteroffensive against Italian forces ground down by two months of heavy fighting. His objective was to split the Italian army, isolate their Corps commands, and lay a foundation for a follow-on operation to crush the invaders.

a military commander. ethiopia's
Emperor Selassie had a reputation as a competent military commander. (Photo/Public domain)

It was a solid plan deftly executed. However, ground troops simply cannot maneuver in the face of enemy air superiority. Despite the overwhelming technological disparities, the Ethiopians nonetheless still gave a good accounting of themselves.

At one point, an Italian Major named Criniti commanded a squadron of light tanks tasked to block the Ethiopian advance. One valiant Ethiopian soldier charged through withering machinegun fire to mount one of the compact Italian armored vehicles. He then banged on the turret to get the crew’s attention. The two gunners popped their hatches to deal with this unexpected threat. In response, the Ethiopian soldier decapitated them both with his sword.

Emperor Selassie Runs Out of Options

Despite the success of the Christmas Offensive, the Italians’ use of poison gas, to include both mustard and phosgene, ultimately turned the tide of the conflict. Emperor Selassie left Ethiopia to make an impassioned speech for support before the League of Nations in Geneva. World opinion was solidly against the Italians, but the League of Nations had no substantive power. Ethiopia fell, and the emperor spent the rest of the war in exile with his family in the UK.

man and women standing by eachother. ethiopia's
Selassie and his family were forced into exile in Britain following their war with the Italians. (Photo/Public domain)

You recall we began this discussion with King Solomon. Haile Selassie claimed to be the direct descendant of the Solomonic Dynasty. He posited that Menelik I, the purported son of the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, had sired a line of kings that led unbroken right up to his person in the 20th century. Considering this dynasty really gained a foothold in 1270 AD, that’s most likely not true. However, it is thought-provoking to ponder.

A group of Russian-backed Marxists called the Derg eventually removed Haile Selassie in a coup in 1975. Soon afterwards, Derg operatives strangled the deposed emperor to death in his bed. He was 83 years old. The sordid details were not uncovered for another two decades.

painting of a king. ethiopia's
A lot of folks viewed Emperor Haile Selassie as way more than just a regular guy. (Photo/Public domain)

There is much more to this story than we have space to explore. Many followers of the Rastafari movement venerated Haile Selassie as a god. That’s itself a most fascinating tale.

Time Magazine rated Selassie as being among the “Top 25 Political Icons of All Time.” His legacy remains influential in the region to this day. It was a curious end to the line of wise men that just might have descended all the way from the Israelite King Solomon.

Categories
A Victory! Soldiering The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People

Frontier Infantry 1866-91 by Will Rodriguez

Protecting the wagon train by Frederic Remington

Essay by Yankee Papa (all rights reserved)

In June of 1866 700 men of the 18th Infantry Regiment were marching out of Fort Laramie heading up the new “Bozeman Trail…” This would save hundreds of miles from the old route to the mines in Montana.

The weather was splendid and the troops were marching towards some of the most beautiful country in North America…at least in June. They were also marching into the hunting grounds of the Lakota, the Northern Cheyenne and the Arapaho.

That wasn’t supposed to be a problem. Peace Commissioners were meeting with the chiefs at Fort Laramie as they marched past. Unfortunately some of the chiefs were deeply opposed and nothing had been agreed upon when the troops showed up to build three forts in their territory. A couple of the most fierce, including Red Cloud called foul and rode off pledging war.

As they were too often wont to do, the commissioners decided to ignore the hostile or no show chiefs and just get the signatures of the ones present… even though it might not be their territory at issue. More than one war started this way.

But the word from the brass was that there would not be war… just some hotheaded chiefs… maybe some livestock raids on the posts. The high brass did not understand that as many as 4000 warriors might wish to dispute the matter with them.

The 18th had a proud record in the Civil War, but most of those lads had mustered out. Officers (who often had held higher rank during the war) and NCOs had seen combat… but not most of the common soldiers.

But… the brass indicated that there would be no major fighting. So many raw recruits and almost no training… just what little their NCOs could give them on their way. Drill and musketry not even scheduled until into the next year after the forts built.

The 18th was something new… it was not just made up largely of post-war men… but was among the first of the new blood on the frontier.

The remnants of the old marched past them as they neared Fort Laramie. The last of the “Galvanized Yankees”, former Confederates who volunteered to join the Union infantry to get out of the prison camps. Promised that they would fight Indians on the frontier, not their kin in the South.

Many were signed up for three years, and that meant that many were not discharged upon the end of the war. The last of the six regiments marched past the 18th on their way home to be discharged.

The soldiers of the 18th found that interesting, but were more concerned with their boots. Loss of weapons…illness and wounds… and bad feet could cripple an infantry unit.

Unless you paid a private boot maker, you bought “off the shelf…” In 1818 “lasts” were developed to enable production of specific left and right shoes… but this only came into common usage in the late 1850s… and with some minor exceptions, infantry in the Civil War and for some years thereafter (until Civil War stocks used up) had shoes with no left foot-right foot differentiation.

Prior to the march most NCOs would have shown the recruits how to fully soak the “boots” (up to the ankle and 4 sets of eyelets) and then let them dry on their feet before attempting to cover any distance in them. Easier to break in the boots than the feet.

Just as well that no fighting was expected…Colonel Carrington… well, everybody liked him, but he had never been in battle. Commissioned a Colonel from a law practice at the start of the war and handed the 18th Regiment… he was placed on “detached duty” for the entire war… staff duty in Washington.

If some of the officers thought that there might be a fight, they could not be happy at the Regiment’s strength… A new Civil War regiment contained 1000 men… the 18th only had 700… and of those all but 400 would be going to two forts… one at either end of the trail.

Actually they were lucky. A decade later and infantry companies on the frontier would not be at 70 like the 18th instead of the Civil War standard of 100… but down to a normal of 37.

And of course the rifles. The Ordnance Department had plenty of breech loading rifles in storage after the war… but chose to let the 18th head into the Powder River country with muzzle loading rifles (see https://gruntsandco.com/u-s-ordnance-rogue-fiefdom/  )

But then again, there was not supposed to be any fighting.

Only real Indian fighter around here, the Colonel’s guide… Jim Bridger. Even the recruits had heard stories about this old mountain man.

Bridger had his own assessment of what was going on. He thought that Red Cloud and some others would do more than just “steal some livestock…” A lot of horses, mules, and cattle that would have to be grazed outside the fort… Firewood to be cut some miles from the fort…something that required peace…

And then there were the women and children that the brass encouraged the Regiment to take with them. Total including workers of 400 civilians. Most would be at the fort in the middle of the trail… right in the heart of the Powder River hunting grounds. Colonel Carrington listened to Bridger… but the high brass assured Carrington that there would be no major hostilities…

[…The 18th had detachments build forts at both ends of the trail and built Fort Phil Kearny in the middle. Livestock indeed stolen and soldiers and woodcutters killed. On December 21, 1866, a Captain Fetterman… (had commanded the 18th at times during the war in higher brevet rank) put the seal on his disrespect to the Colonel and arrogantly disobeyed his orders.

Sent in relief of a wood chopping party, he instead rode after a party of Lakota to a ridge line. Ordered not to go past it, he did… with a mixed force of Infantry and Cavalry… 80 men. Just the number that he had boasted about… “With 80 men I can run roughshod over the whole Sioux nation.” Instead the Cavalry bolted to the front leaving the infantry panting behind… then more than 1000 Sioux rose up and caught them all in the open. It was over in a couple of minutes…

There would be other fights in the area, but the high brass in Washington decided what they should have in the first place… the soldiers could not guard the trail… only their own forts.

Besides, Infantry needed to guard the trans-continental railroad that was being built.  A treaty was signed… the troops pulled out by 1868 and the Sioux burned the forts behind them. It was the last war that Indians would win in North America…]

“Good Marksmanship and Guts” DA Poster 21-45
Near Fort Phil Kearney, Wyoming, 2 August 1867. The Wagon Box Fight is one of the great traditions of the Infantry in the West. A small force of 30 men on the 9th Infantry led by Brevet Major James Powell was suddenly attacked in the early morning hours by some 2,000 Sioux Indians.

Choosing to stand and fight, these soldiers hastily erected a barricade of wagon boxes, and during the entire morning stood off charge after charge.

The Sioux finally withdrew, leaving behind several hundred killed and wounded. The defending force suffered only three casualties. By their coolness, firmness and confidence these infantrymen showed what a few determined men can accomplish with good marksmanship and guts.

These days you mention the Old West and the Indian Fighting Army and people immediately picture Cavalry. Usually John Ford Cavalry. West had wide open spaces and the Indians had horses… so troops had to have horses… right? Oh, maybe some Infantry to guard the forts, but otherwise…

History tells a far different tale. There were never enough Cavalry… there never could be. The gigantic Union Army was mustered out and in the end, only 25,000 soldiers were left in the entire Army… many in the South enforcing Reconstruction.

A Cavalry regiment cost twice as much to raise as an Infantry regiment… and a lot more to keep running each year. And in spite of Hollywood… Infantry had a major role to play.

While mounted forces had played a role in every war from the Revolution on, there were no permanent regiments until the 1850s. Even then the mission a bit “fuzzy…”

Cavalry proper was supposed to fight almost exclusively on horseback. Dragoons were supposed to be able to fight some on horseback and some on foot. We had both, but at the start of the Civil War it was decided to call them all “Cavalry…”

Immediately after the Civil War a lot of regular and volunteer regiments were thrown into Kansas to put down Indian raids.  Thousands of soldiers tracked endless miles and only killed two hostiles.  Something else would have to be tried… and with a lot less soldiers… most of these were going to be demobilized.

Infantry would be needed for far more than to guard the forts.  Wagon trains and supply trains would need escorts. While some Cavalry with the trains were handy… too many and they became a logistic nightmare.

American stock, unlike Indian ponies could not subsist on grass… Cavalry remounts needed oats and the like…a lot of them.

Even “all Cavalry” offensives had a limited range… In 1882 the assistant Quartermaster of the Army reported: “Unless cavalry operate in a country well supplied with forage, a large amount of wagon carriage must be furnished for forage and in such cases, cavalry is of little value except to guard its own train… and to do that in the presence of an enterprising enemy it will need the addition of infantry…”

Covering the Cavalry’s Withdrawal by Frederic Remington

Horses are, for all their size, relatively fragile.  They can drop from a number of diseases and if worn out require an extended amount of time to recover.  At the end of the day men are tougher than horses.

One officer who served in large expeditions in the Sioux and Nez Perce campaigns involving major units of Cavalry and Infantry, Sixth Infantry’s Col. William B. Hazen wrote “After the fourth day’s march of a mixed command, the horse does not march faster than does the foot soldier, and after the seventh day the foot soldier begins to out-march the horse, and from that time on the foot soldier has to end his march earlier and earlier each day to enable the cavalry to reach the camp the same day at all. Even with large grain allowances horses quickly deteriorated under extended exertion…”

In 1876 a 50 man Cavalry troop dismounted had less firepower on the line than an Infantry company of 37 men. Every fourth trooper had to take four horses to the rear and hold them there until the engagement was over. In addition the Cavalry was using shorter range carbines while the Infantry was using longer range (and more reliable) rifles.

The image of the “Cavalry riding to the rescue…” could not have been farther from the truth.  In most cases, by the time that the Cavalry found out about a raid, the Indians could be fifty miles away… one hundred if they were Comanches.

Comanches might make a raid… then join up some miles off with couple of boys holding spare ponies… Alternate between them making distance.  Cavalry, even an hour away would never catch up with them… just wear out their mounts. Cavalry had to dismount and walk their horses for a while every couple of hours to give them a breather.  Meanwhile the Comanches kept swapping ponies.

One thing that cost the Cavalry was riding exhausted mounts into contact with Indians who were up for a fight… Reno almost lost his squadron when he had to retreat with blown horses (and exhausted, sleep-deprived troopers) at the Little Big Horn.

Map from “Winning the West The Army in the Indian Wars, 1865-1890” Army Historical Series

The only feasible military solution was to hit the hostiles in their villages… preferably in the winter when their mounts were scrawny.  There were a number of problems with that strategy.

In the first place, during the Civil War a regiment of Colorado volunteers (enlisted for 100 days only) under a fanatic named Chivington had murdered many Southern Cheyennes at Sand Creek.  Most of his men were bar sweepings and acted accordingly… rape, beheadings, “trophies” taken… slaves.

These Indians had followed the directive to camp by the nearest fort… but were ordered away by militia officers as a cynical prelude to slaughter.  Other Indians were making the trouble… but these were closer… and both Chivington and the Governor of Colorado were looking for a cheap victory.

By the time that the people back East figured out what had happened, the regiment was paid off and the Army could do nothing.  One regular officer who was going to testify was murdered in Denver.

So raids even into actual hostile Indian villages… though not as barbaric as Chivington’s would raise holy hell with people back East and their Congressmen.

And just what was a hostile village?  Custer’s assault on Black Kettle’s village on the Washita, while not the insanity of Sand Creek was bad enough and raised troubling questions.

Black Kettle himself was an honorable chief who wanted peace.  But war parties drifted in and out of his camp…some with hostages.  He was not keen to have them rest up in his village… but tribal custom prevented him asking them to leave so long as they did not cause major trouble. He had no actual *authority*… as with most Plains chiefs, he led by his personality.

The Eastern media learned that Black Kettle had attempted to speak with the soldiers before the first shots were fired.  He was shot and too many of the soldiers fired at anything that moved.  It was a “victory” that would cost the Army in political support and in the unending enmity of both major branches of the Cheyenne people.

The biggest problem was identifying hostiles.  Generally back when the Indian wars fought East of the Mississippi, a chief’s word would bind his tribe.  On the Plains it was different.

A chief might sign a treaty with every intention of honoring it.  But on the Plains both the war chiefs and the peace chiefs led by their personality and influence…not by compulsion.

Some members or clans of his tribe might decide to go their own way and raid.  This caused reprisal raids (often by civilians) against the nearest members of that tribe regardless of any possible innocence.  This of course led to those victims raiding the nearest whites… regardless of any possible innocence.

The reservation system was supposed to clear all this up.  Those on the reservations would be labeled as “peaceful” and those off would be considered hostile.

But not all Plains Indians treaty bound to live on reservations. Some clans might…other might not.  And some hostiles came to the reservations (mostly come winter) to rest up for new raids in the Spring. Some reservation occupants had permission to go off reservation on long hunting trips… Some were just that… others…

Shortly before the Little Big Horn campaign the government decided to reshuffle the deck.  Indian tribes would no longer be treated as “sovereign nations” but as wards of the government.  Certain tribes including the Sioux and Cheyenne were ordered (in winter) to report to a reservation or be considered hostile.

It is doubtful that many got the order…or would have considered moving in that weather… or even in the Spring.  They saw no reason to give up their way of life.

The Army moved…and bungled the entire campaign…Custer’s blunders just one part of a bad set of events. But from this point the role of the Infantry would increase.

Like other troops on the frontier, the Infantry had some real problems.  Their authorized strength too low… and usually could not meet that.  Something like 37% of all troops on their first enlistment deserted each year.

Not just the low pay.  Army preferred to pay in paper money at isolated posts.  Counterfeiting so rampant for some years that most merchants would only take at a discount.

New troops got very little training. Most years no more than 16 rounds of ammunition per man for target practice. Often used on endless details having little to do with soldiering.  If infantry present at a fort, they got most of the endless chores… most troopers work time centered around their mounts.

While officers preferred “Iowa farm boy” type recruits…they usually didn’t hang around.  Many of the best soldiers were the Irish and Germans… at least those who made it into the NCO ranks.

Many people have heard of the two regiments of black soldiers in the Cavalry.  But there were also two regiments of Buffalo Soldier Infantry on the plains.  On average they were a better investment than many of the white recruits.

Lot of drunks and loafers and other types likely to get into trouble and/or desert joined the white regiments… But there was a surplus of good quality men wanting to join the black regiments.

Desertion was a very small problem.  Training took longer because of their background (this happened in Rhodesia with the Rhodesian African Rifles as well), but once trained up, these men proved superb soldiers.

Most white officers outside the black units looked down on the regiments…prejudice… nothing more.  At the end of the Civil War Custer had refused the rank of full Colonel with a black regiment and chose to be a Lt. Colonel of a white one. (Actual commander, Colonel Sturgis always on temporary duty in Washington until after Custer’s death.)

Whether in garrison, or even in the field, the Buffalo Soldiers often looked smarter than their white counterparts.  Some of that was their desire, and that of their officers to look like proper soldiers. 

Initially, part was because by the time that the black post-war regiments formed, the Army was out of their stocks of poorly made Civil War uniforms (bad contractors) and only had the later quality stuff left.

Company B of the 25th Infantry was stationed at Fort Snelling, Minnesota, from 1883-1888.
They pose here in their full dress uniforms. U.S. Army Signal Corps photo

After Custer’s famous luck ran out, the Army got orders to clean up the plains once and for all.  The Infantry now would show what they could do.

The Infantry did whatever it took… The Fifth Infantry’s Colonel… Nelson Miles… put some of his troops on confiscated Indian ponies to help run the hostiles ragged and keep them from assembling in mass numbers.

But the real mission for the Infantry was a foot job… Hitting the Indian camps in the winter.  The idea was not to win a big battle to the finish… Too often women (who often fought) and children caught up in the gun play and too many warriors would escape.

And a desperate fight for a village would often result in heavy casualties among the troops.  At Big Hole later against the Nez Perce, troops from another Department would learn that the hard way.

The object was to cause the hostiles to flee… leaving their winter camps behind them… their shelter… massive food stores… and often most of their spare ponies.  The best would be used and later sold… the rest shot.

The Indians would stagger into another village of the same or allied tribe… but they too could be hit by the “walks-a-heaps” tomorrow.

One winter of the Infantry doing this broke the backs of the Sioux (many of whom fled to Canada…where only the Royal Navy prevented the U.S. Army from crossing after them…)and the Northern Cheyenne.  The foot sloggers could hold up better in appalling weather than Cavalry remounts.

There were other campaigns on the plains… the Nez Perce battles that often involved Infantry… including their final one.  Then in Northern California the Modocs in the lava beds where only the Infantry could operate. Others…

Against the Apache the Infantry had its work cut out for it.  If Wyoming and Montana cold in the winter… the heat of the Southwest could be hell on earth.  And the Apaches liked it just fine…

Other than the expedient of the Indian ponies, there were two primary ways that the Army could mount Infantry.  European mounted infantry rode horses but always fought on foot and carried rifles… not carbines.

But it takes time to get Infantry used to the bone breaking gait of a Cavalry remount.  Besides, especially in Apache country horses prone to dying even when cared for by specialists.

The answer was to mount the Infantry on mules.  Mules can be stubborn…but once one accepts the rider, their easy walking gait far easier for a novice to handle.  Add to that that other than camels (used for a time in the 1850s) they were the hardest critters to kill off in the desert. Unfortunately (from a Cavalryman’s standpoint) most mules will not charge into gunfire.  Smarter than horses… and maybe their riders.

An elephant’s main strength is in pushing and pulling, but it can still handle a lot on its back.  A properly packed Army mule could carry two thirds of the load (weight, not size) on its back that an elephant could.

One of the better Generals was a Colonel named George Crook who had worn stars in the Civil War and after dazzling victories in Idaho and Oregon was promoted to Brigadier General over a great many heads.

“Crook refined the science of organizing, equipping and operating mule trains … selection of mules civilian attendants preferred… proper design  mounting and packing of pack saddles…” (Utley)

But the best partnership was Infantry on foot… with pack mules (no wagons that could not go into nasty country)and Apache scouts from the same tribe… day or two out in advance.

This partnership was put to the test in Mexico in the Geronimo campaign.  After the Apaches surrendered, they said that this combination gave them the most trouble.

They could always mount up and ride away from their hideouts… but American and Mexican Cavalry all over the place… sudden moves dangerous… Meanwhile the Infantry and mules would be maybe a day behind the scouts…as persistent as the scorching sun.

Grant’s troops in Virginia would not have recognized one of these companies.  No bugles on the march…bayonets left in barracks.  No glorious dark blue tunic over sky blue trousers.

Like Captain Henry Lawton’s company out of Fort Huachuca, they marched in white long underwear and campaign hats.

These companies marched without the drunks and the slackers.  They had some of the roughest on the job training on the frontier…that produced hard-bitten professionals.  They were a world away from the green 18th Infantry lads marching up the Bozeman Trail in 1866.

This period of the “Dark Ages” of the United States Army lasted from 1866-98.  But these Infantry companies in Mexico would not have been out of place in many Twentieth Century campaigns… from the Philippines to Nicaragua…

US Postage Stamp of Remington’s “Protecting the Wagon Train”

-YP-

Suggested Reading

http://www.amazon.com/Crimsoned-Prairie-S-L-Marshall/dp/0684130890/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390888130&sr=1-1&keywords=crimsoned+prairie

http://www.amazon.com/Frontiersmen-Blue-United-States-1848-1865/dp/0803295502/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390887589&sr=1-1&keywords=frontiersmen+in+blue

http://www.amazon.com/Frontier-Regulars-United-States-1866-1891/dp/0803295510/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1390887935&sr=8-1&keywords=frontier+regulars+utley

http://www.amazon.com/Dose-Frontier-Soldiering-Corporal-1877-1882/dp/0803242328/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390887799&sr=1-1&keywords=soldiering+american+southwest

Categories
Soldiering War

Some more art of some great Warriors

Categories
A Victory! COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad I am so grateful!! If I was in Charge Interesting stuff Leadership of the highest kind Manly Stuff One Hell of a Good Fight Our Great Kids Paint me surprised by this Real men Soldiering Some Red Hot Gospel there! Stand & Deliver This great Nation & Its People War

Another, this man is one Hell of a stud!! William Frederick Harris

William Frederick Harris (March 6, 1918 – December 7, 1950) was a United States Marine Corps (USMC) lieutenant colonel during the Korean War. The son of USMC General Field Harris, he was a prisoner of war during World War II and a recipient of the Navy Cross for extraordinary heroism during the breakout in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. He was last seen by American forces on December 7, 1950, was listed missing in action and is presumed to have been killed in action. Harris was featured in the book and film Unbroken.[1][2]

Biography

William Frederick Harris was born on March 6, 1918, at Good Samaritan Hospital in Lexington, Kentucky, to Field Harris (1895–1967) and Katherine Chinn-Harris (1899–1990).[1]

Harris graduated from the United States Naval AcademyAnnapolis, Maryland, in the class of 1939. He was in A Company, 1st Battalion, 4th Marines[3] and was captured by Japanese forces during the Battle of Corregidor in May 1942.

He escaped with Edgar Whitcomb, future governor of Indiana,[4] and on May 22, 1942, swam 8+12 hours across Manila Bay to Bataan, where he joined Filipino guerrillas fighting Japan just after the Battle of Bataan.[5] In the summer of 1942, Harris and two others left Whitcomb and attempted to sail to China in a motorboat, but the engine failed and the boat drifted for 29 days with little food or water. The monsoon blew them back to an island in the southern part of the Philippines where they split up and he joined another resistance group.[6] Harris headed towards Australia hoping to rejoin American forces he heard were fighting in Guadalcanal, but he was recaptured in June[7] or September 1943[8] by Japan on Morotai island, Indonesia, around 1,000 miles (1,600 km) from Bataan.[9][10]

Harris was taken to Ōfuna POW camp, arriving February 13, 1944[11] and became acquainted with Louis Zamperini. Harris experienced malnutrition and brutal treatment at the hands of his jailers, notably by Sueharu Kitamura (later convicted of war crimes). Due to malnutrition, by mid-1944 the over 6 feet (180 cm) tall Harris weighed only 120 pounds (54 kg) and had beriberi.[12] In September and November 1944, Harris was beaten severely, to the point of unconsciousness, by Kitamura.[13][14] According to fellow captive, Pappy Boyington, Harris was knocked down 20 times with a baseball bat for reading a newspaper stolen from the trash.[15] Harris was near death when he arrived at a POW camp near Ōmori in early 1945. Zamperini provided Harris with additional rations and he recovered.[16] William Harris was chosen to represent prisoners of war during the surrender of Japan, aboard USS Missouri on September 2, 1945.

After World War II, Harris remained in the Marines. He married Jeanne Lejeune Glennon in 1946 and had two daughters.[1]

He was recalled to active duty during the Korean War.[2] He was the commanding officer of Third Battalion, Seventh MarinesFirst Marine Division (Reinforced) in the Korean War. During the breakout in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, his unit stayed behind as a rear guard to protect retreating forces. Despite heavy losses, Harris rallied his troops and personally went into harm’s way during the battle. Harris was last seen by American forces on December 7, 1950, walking and carrying two rifles on his shoulders. He was listed as missing in action, but after the war when former POWs had neither seen nor heard of him, Harris was declared to be dead. He was awarded the Navy Cross in 1951 for his actions at Chosin. Because of his penchant for escape and survival exhibited during World War II, his peers and family were reluctant to accept his death. A superior officer held on to his Navy Cross for a number of years, expecting to be able to give it to Harris personally.[17]

Remains thought to be his were eventually recovered. His family doubted the remains were his, and conclusive testing using DNA had not been attempted as of 2014.[1]

Awards

Navy Cross

For his leadership and heroism on December 7, 1950, Harris was awarded the Navy Cross.

The President of the United States of America takes pride in presenting the Navy Cross (Posthumously) to Lieutenant Colonel William Frederick Harris (MCSN: 0-5917), United States Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism in connection with military operations against an armed enemy of the United Nations while serving as Commanding Officer of the Third Battalion, Seventh Marines, FIRST Marine Division (Reinforced), in action against enemy aggressor forces in the Republic of Korea the early morning of 7 December 1950. Directing his Battalion in affording flank protection for the regimental vehicle train and the first echelon of the division trains proceeding from Hagaru-ri to Koto-ri, Lieutenant Colonel Harris, despite numerous casualties suffered in the bitterly fought advance, promptly went into action when a vastly outnumbering, deeply entrenched hostile force suddenly attacked at point-blank range from commanding ground during the hours of darkness. With his column disposed on open, frozen terrain and in danger of being cut off from the convoy as the enemy laid down enfilade fire from a strong roadblock, he organized a group of men and personally led them in a bold attack to neutralize the position with heavy losses to the enemy, thereby enabling the convoy to move through the blockade. Consistently exposing himself to devastating hostile grenade, rifle and automatic weapons fire throughout repeated determined attempts by the enemy to break through, Lieutenant Colonel Harris fought gallantly with his men, offering words of encouragement and directing their heroic efforts in driving off the fanatic attackers. Stout-hearted and indomitable despite tremendous losses in dead and wounded, Lieutenant Colonel Harris, by his inspiring leadership, daring combat tactics and valiant devotion to duty, contributed to the successful accomplishment of a vital mission and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.

— Board of Awards, Serial 1089, 17 October 1951[18]

Harris also received the Purple Heart, the Prisoner of War Medal, the Combat Action Ribbon, the Korean Service Medal, the United Nations Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation, the Korean War Service Medal and the World War II Victory Medal.[19]

 
Bronze star

Bronze star

1st Row Navy Cross Purple Heart
2nd Row Combat Action Ribbon Prisoner of War Medal Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal World War II Victory Medal
3rd Row National Defense Service Medal Korean Service Medal Republic of Korea Presidential Unit Citation United Nations Korea Medal
Categories
All About Guns Soldiering War

The Arisaka for Imperial Japanese Paratroopers

Categories
Soldiering

Oh come on Top, you gotta be kidding me!

Categories
All About Guns Soldiering War

The Rifleman In The Atomic Age

In this day of giant tanks, supersonic airplanes, devastating atomic explosions, does the Army value the man with a rifle?
by AMERICAN RIFLEMAN STAFF

This article appeared originally in the March 1952 issue of American Rifleman

The other evening I heard General J. Lawton Collins, Army Chief of Staff, say on the radio that atomic weapons for the U.S. Infantry would be ready ‘in the not too distant future.’ A few days earlier in Texas he had told a reporter that these newfangled weapons for the battlefield would be available ‘very soon.’ Gen. Collins

If what General Collins has said is true, what is to happen to the doughboy who lugs his M-1 Garand into battle?

I had first asked the question several years earlier at the Fort Benning, Georgia, Infantry School, at an orientation conference for reporters held by the Defense Department.

All during that day at Fort Benning our ears and eyes had been filled with the thunder and flash of mock battle, of rumbling tanks, of big mortars that made the earth shake, of ear-splitting artillery, of flamethrowers searing ‘enemy’ pill boxes.

In that smoke and dust, the rifleman seemed to have shrunk to an insignificant figure walking behind the thunder with his Garand. Where was the foot-soldier with his rifle?

Sitting in a big classroom later that day, with the Infantry School’s top brass in front of us, we reporters were supposed to ask questions about the day’s demonstrations of infantry weapons and tactics we had witnessed. I asked officers at the Infantry School the following questions:

What good is the rifle in modern warfare?

How many of the enemy does the rifle really kill?

Would it not be cheaper and just as effective to hand our men a lightweight machine gun that makes lots of noise and gives them a psychological lift?

What is the use of wasting money on expensive rifles and ammunition when the stuff is just sprayed around anyway and does not do much harm to the enemy?

I did not get satisfactory answers to these questions. It was apparent that little attention was being paid to the role of the rifle; the emphasis was on noisier weapons.

Upon my return to Washington, still seeking the answers to those questions, I started on a personal hunt in the Pentagon. No one in Army G-3 (Operations) seemed to care to analyze what the rifleman does in combat, what part he plays and whether he is still needed in the Infantry.

I searched through Army publications for articles about the rifle and the rifleman but found little to answer the question: What about the rifleman in the atomic age?

I was beginning to realize that I was looking for the forgotten man in the Army. I decided to see the Army’s top infantryman, General Collins himself.

General Collins is all soldier—erect in bearing; pressed, polished, and neat; remote and businesslike. He likes to get down to business at hand and get it over with in the time allotted on his daily calendar. he is cautious and restrained in his talk.

I started off by telling him of my bewilderment in this talk of fantastic weapons, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, guided missiles. I told him that I had read of the clamor for atomic bombs to replace infantrymen, of atomic bombs for the battlefield, of atomic bombs that make wars cheaper. I mentioned the air-power theorists who suggest that future wars can be won without men and their rifles.

“Are the rifleman really foredoomed as a military force?” I asked General Collins.

Grinning broadly at my gloomy forecast, General Collins leaned back in his leather chair thoughtfully.

“I don’t foresee the period where there will be no riflemen,” he said slowly. “It is possible that the need for riflemen may be reduced by new weapons in the dim distant future, but I feel strongly that we will always need men armed with shoulder weapons.”

“It was amply demonstrated in Korea that the basic tools of the infantry—the rifle, machine gun, and mortar—will continue to be necessary for warfare in the foreseeable future,” General Collins said. “You have to have rifleman as an integral part of the armed forces. You can’t stop an enemy by air alone. You can’t replace the rifleman by atomic weapons.”

General Collins conceded that new weapons like guided missiles or atomic bombs may be needed, particularly at the outset of war, to offset the ‘relative inferiority’ in forces in being. He said the chances are that we would be outnumbered in the beginning and we would use any weapon to overcome the enemy’s advantage in troop strength.

But, he emphasized, these new weapons, useful though they may be, cannot do away with the rifle or with the man on the ground. He noted that the history of warfare demonstrates this fact, despite innovations over the centuries. He observed that even an old-fashioned weapon like the bayonet, which appeared headed for a museum, made a dramatic comeback in hand-to-hand fighting in Korea.

General Collins stressed the importance of the rifleman in holding ground and taking ground from the enemy. He said Korea presents a graphic illustration of this classical axiom of warfare. He cited the vital role of the rifleman by recalling that more and more men are involved in warfare over the centuries, despite the development of new weapons and the technology of war. He said there may not be more troops at the front lines than in the past, but the complicated weapons have added more men in the rear to supply the men at the front.

The General broke in here with a little story. He recalled that when he visited the Korean battlefronts in July 1950, he talked with Maj. Gen. William F. Dean, missing commander of the hard-hit 24th Infantry Division, near Taegu. General Dean’s last words to him were, “I need more rifleman.” About a week later, Dean vanished in the fierce fighting at Taejon and just recently turned up as a prisoner of the Chinese communists.General Dean

By coincidence, the man who followed General Dean as commander of the 24th Infantry Division in Korea was leathery Maj. Gen. John H. Church, now commandant of the Infantry School at Fort Benning. As would be expected of a combat veteran of three wars, General Church is not ready to write off the infantryman or the rifle in favor of atomic weapons.General Church

I had talked with General Church in the Pentagon and I had written him in my search for answers to the questions that had been troubling me. In his first comprehensive policy statement as the new commandant of the Infantry School, General Church emphasized the point that the rifle is not a ‘has-been’ in warfare.

General Church noted that the infantry is a balanced team consisting not only of the rifleman but of mutually supporting elements with tanks, machine guns, mortars, recoilless rifles, as well as supply, signal, engineer, ordnance, medical and other units.

He said that of the 18,804 men in each infantry division, slightly more than 7,000 are armed with rifles. Of these, only 1,944 are rifleman in rifle squads. He emphasized that this ratio of riflemen to the whole division is often used erroneously to support arguments seeking to detract from the importance of the rifleman.

“The incontrovertible fact remains that the rifleman is the heart and soul of the infantry team, and, in fact, of the combined ground arms team,” he said. “All of the other elements have but one mission—to support and assist the rifleman to move forward and seize and hold his assigned objective.

“The very weight of this support serves to emphasize the basic fundamental remains that it is the rifleman who, in the final analysis, carries the fight to the enemy and clinches the decision…None of this in any way minimizes the importance of the rifleman. Those who support him behind the lines and on the battlefield itself help to soften up the enemy, but it still remains for him to deliver the knockout blow.

“Remember, too, that in the fluid type of warfare being fought today there is no fixed front line,” General Church cautioned. “Infiltrating attacks in the rear areas require that cooks, supply and administrative personnel, and command post personnel take precautions for their own security, and they are frequently forced to fight as riflemen for their own defense. Infantrymen who make up the gun screws for mortars and machine guns and recoilless rifles defend themselves and their gun positions as riflemen if an attacking enemy reaches them.”

After all the kudos to the rifleman as the ‘heart and soul’ of the infantry, the question still remains: Is accurately aimed rifle fire and marksmanship training still important in warfare? Perhaps, it might be suggested, the rifleman can be just as effective by shooting helter-skelter with a ‘burp’ gun. Why bother with rifle marksmanship?

Both Generals Church and Collins, who have seen war closeup, are not ready to surrender the traditional American concept of rifle marksmanship.

“It cannot be denied,” said General Church, “that there are those who advocate a de-emphasis on training in rifle marksmanship. It is our unequivocal conviction that such thinking is wrong. The Infantry School, which is responsible for the formulation of Infantry doctrine throughout our Army, has not reduced the time or the emphasis given to this type of training.”

General Collins stressed in his talk with me that he has always been concerned with the waste of ammunition in warfare and in the tremendous cost of moving ammunition supplies to the front. He believes in frugality of ammunition use, of making ammunition count.

That’s why General Collins is adamant in his opposition to what he considers is the European tendency toward automatic weapons to replace the rifle. General Collins said that he favors switching, when conditions permit, to a lightweight version of the Garand rifle, with certain improvements, but his is solidly against suggestions that the Garand be made ‘solely’ a fully automatic rifle.

“My personal view,” General Collins told me, “is that we need a lightweight rifle that can be used for semiautomatic fire or, when required, full automatic fire. I am personally quite skeptical about making all weapons fully automatic. Automatic shoulder weapons waste too much ammunition. Of course, we need a Browning automatic rifle with each squad, but to arm every man with a fully automatic rifle would be foolhardy.

“From my experience in combat and from years as a weapons instructor, I would say that you can get more hits with a semiautomatic rifle than with a full automatic. I am confident that the automatic wastes ammunition. And it’s difficult enough to get ammunition to the front without wasting it.”

General Collins conceded that there is a special need for the ‘burp’ gun but he stressed that every soldier should not be armed with one. He said ‘there’s not use spraying the woods’ when aimed, accurate fire at a clump of bushes concealing the enemy would do the trick.

He said that the soldiers he has talked with in combat areas want the M-1 Garand rifle. They must have more striking power, not less, he said. They would lose hitting capability with an automatic rifle, he added.

The adoption of a rifle that can be fired fully automatically appears to contradict General Collins’ attitude favoring the more accurate fire of the semiautomatic Garand. If the semiautomatic rifle has greater hitting effectiveness and saves ammunition, the question arises, why have it turned into an automatic? It’s obvious that troops with a rifle that can be fired semiautomatically or fully automatically will have a great tendency to switch the selector to full automatic—turning it into a ‘burp’ gun, the very thing General Collins deplores.

From my personal observation in the Pentagon, I have decided that General Collins still objects to an automatic rifle for the foot solider but has been influenced to keep the door open for such a development in the future. It should be evident that if the Army turns to a shoulder weapon which can be fired automatically, accurate marksmanship will have to yield to the natural tendency with such weapons for helter-skelter spraying and a high waste of ammunition.

I also talked with General Collins about the values of civilian marksmanship and the part that could be played by civilian rifle clubs in supplying the Army with ready-trained marksmen. He replied that the Army likes to get well-trained rifle marksmen. He said youths coming from rifle clubs who already know how to shoot accurately could be used more readily as coaches in the Army training system.

“What I am afraid of is that people may get the idea that rifle clubs could be a substitute for universal military training,” General Collins commented when it was suggested that the rifle clubs in the United States could be tied into a system of marksmanship training for youths before they go into the Army, or for reservists on inactive status.

“What we need most is a system of universal military training,” General Collins declared. “When young men pass into UMT, that’s where we will teach them to shoot. We can do that in a relatively short time. The whole method of instruction in marksmanship has been worked out to perfection over a period of years. We can teach marksmanship effectively through UMT.”

General Collins make it clear that rifle marksmanship is merely one of many courses of instruction that the UMT trainee must learn and that marksmanship cannot be emphasized at the sacrifice of other vital training.

“Very frankly,” he said, “we are not going to spent too much money on this one aspect of training. We must weight our expenses carefully. We can’t spend as much as we have in the past.”

General Collins said he favored continuance of the civilian marksmanship program, and that the Army, to a limited extent, help finance this program. He conceded that early training in rifle marksmanship would help youths preparing for the Army. He emphasized, however, that the Army feels it can take a youth who has never fired a rifle before and train him quickly to become an effective rifleman.

He indicated that pre-introductory training in a civilian rifle club for youths entering the Army would not materially reduce the basic training course of the Army, or result in any appreciable saving of money.

General Collins said the Army has little need for rifle specialists ‘who can hit a gnat’s eye’ although he favored competitive shooting both in and out of the Army. Competitions, he said, create a healthy and widespread interest in rifle marksmanship, and frequently produce statistical and technical information of value to the services.

It was clear to me from what General Collins said, and from what he implied, that the Army continues its traditional jealousy of other agencies that might help it get its job done. The Army attitude appears to be that civilian marksmanship training is sort of a luxury which, although worthwhile, cannot do the Army’s job of training soldiers to shoot and handle firearms. But if it is true that the Army still needs rifles and riflemen, it seems to me as a military reporter and plain citizen that the Army should welcome every bit of help it can get.

And there may be some real money in the economy in training young men in civilian rifle clubs—thus saving time and money when they get into the Army. General Collins rejected this idea, saying that the saving would not be ‘appreciable.’ There is some question whether the Army is not taking a partisan view on this point.

In this atomic age, it is evident that the Army will need its riflemen, and perhaps because this is the atomic age the nation will need its civilian riflemen more than ever.

—Lloyd Norman

Categories
Real men Soldiering

USMC Rifle Squads: The Last 10 Years & Future

Categories
All About Guns Soldiering This great Nation & Its People War

First M16 Rifles in the Vietnam War By Robert A. Sadowski

In the late 1950s, there were basically two camps in the U.S. military on what the next service rifle should be — those who thought a service rifle should be made of wood and blued steel and wanted a modified version of the M1 Garand, and those who thought the future of the modern service rifle was with forged aluminum and polymer furniture.

US Navy sailors armed with M16A1 in Vietnam War
The Vietnam War was a pivotal time of change for the U.S. military’s primary rifle. The country moved from big, heavy rifles firing big, heavy bullets to easier-to-carry rifles firing light, fast rounds. Image: U.S. Navy

While the 5.56mm AR-15 today is so common and accepted that it’s viewed as the “standard” in self-loading rifle design, it is easy to forget how revolutionary it was in its day. In the 1950s (and before the AR-15 was introduced), there was the AR-10 battle rifle.

This radical approach to military rifle design used forged aluminum receivers — an upper and a lower — that were mated with a stock made of polymer — essentially plastic. The caliber was 7.62×51 mm NATO, the same as the M14, but it used a gas-operated, straight-line rotating-bolt system, which offered less recoil than the M14. In addition, it employed a direct gas-impingement system. While it might have come from the same era as the M14, it seemed like it was from a different planet in those days. [Read more about the M14 history.]

Pfc Michael Mendoza fires M16A1 in Vietnam War 1967
Pfc. Michael J. Mendoza uses his M16A1 rifle to recon by fire. Earlier, the company received sniper fire from a valley in the Quang Ngai Province, Republic of Vietnam. Image: NARA

The military bureaucracy was at a stalemate with its heels dug in. A lot was at stake, especially the lucrative government contract. Adding more drama to an already tense and passionate situation, the U.S. military saw the potential benefits of a high-velocity .22-caliber cartridge rather than the more ponderous — but capable — 7.62x51mm round.

To address this, the AR-10 was scaled down to the .223 cartridge and the AR-15 was born. However, the M14 community was still not budging. The M14 had the benefit of a proven design based on the Garand, as well as truly capable, if somewhat traditional, chambering. Despite the fact that the AR-15 and the 5.56×46 mm NATO cartridge had shown great promise in initial testing, the U.S. military’s choice of the M14 over the AR-10 (as well as the FAL) had solidified the wood and steel rifle in the role of primary service rifle for the United States military — for now.

US soldier armed with a M16A1 rifle and AN-PVS-2 starlight scope in 1972
A U.S. soldier armed with an M16A1 rifle in 1972. Mounted on the rifle is an AN/PVS-2 starlight scope. Image: NARA

However, the “aluminum and plastic” upstart would soon gain the upper hand. As is well known, the AR-15 platform eventually prevailed. So, let’s consider that journey.

In hindsight, it was easy to see that the AR-15 would ultimately prevail. Prior to the AR-15 becoming the M16, other factors shaped the evolution of our approach to warfare and the tools used to fight. Let’s take a 10,000-foot view of defense policy in the post-WWII era.

Cold War, Nuclear War, or Guerrilla Warfare?

After WWII and the first use of nuclear weapons, the role of the infantry soldier was thought to be played out in a nuclear battlefield. The nuclear arms race post-WWII had both sides rethinking what a post-nuclear war landscape would look like.

US Marine on patrol near Da Nang Vietnam carrying M16A1
Pfc. John R. Hofstrand, armed with an M16A1, follows a trail during a search and clear operation south of the Da Nang airfield. Image: U.S. Marine Corps

Thankfully, the Cold War-era struggle did not take the form of an atomic mushroom cloud. Counterinsurgency was the new strategy in the unique form of warfare that developed with two opponents armed to the teeth with nukes. Since direct combat was not feasible (as it would effectively end our civilizations), proxy warfare became the norm in hotspots worldwide.

America’s approach was to help these countries fight communism by arming, teaching, and supporting our allies in limited wars in their own nations. Hence, rather than atomic stockpiles of weapons, an old-fashioned arsenal of specialized small arms became the focus. Throw in a few advisors for training, and you have a recipe for the Vietnam War.

Project Agile Is Approved

While the Advanced Research Projects Agency (or “ARPA”), tucked under the broader Defense Department umbrella, was originally organized to research ballistic missiles, in 1961, the Kennedy administration — with an interest in supporting our foreign allies in limited wars to stop communist aggression — approved Project Agile.

Lance Cpl Clements rests with M16A1 after a patrol through flooded rice patties south of Da Nang USMC
Lance Cpl. C. Clements rests with his M16A1 after a patrol through flooded rice patties south of Da Nang during the Vietnam War. Image: U.S. Marine Corps

Project Agile was designed to help remote areas of the world with counterinsurgency action against communist insurgents. Two areas, both in Indochina, were identified as under threat to Communist aggression. One was in Bangkok, and the other was in Saigon.

The average height of a Vietnamese soldier was five feet, and he weighed about 90 pounds. The ARPA was convinced by the original manufacturer of the AR-15 that the gun had a great deal of potential as a rifle for Vietnamese fighters since it was lightweight, capable and soft recoiling.

US Marine checks an enemy bunker with his M16A1
A U.S. Marine cautiously checks an enemy bunker with his M16A1. The Marines encountered the bunker while on patrol south of Da Nang. Image: U.S. Marine Corps

ARPA requested AR-15s for this effort, only to be denied because there were plenty of M2 Carbines in storage that could be issued without spending budget on new guns.

The M2 Carbine was also lightweight and ideal for operators with small statures. The ARPA reintroduced its request and suggested that a limited number of AR-15s be used. They settled on asking for 1,000 rifles to only be used in Vietnam (and not Thailand), and the rifles would be tested against the M2 Carbine.

There were many other subprojects under Project Agile, such as ones that dealt with communications and logistics, as well as planning. However, the ARPA report for the AR-15 was titled “Task 13A” and compared the M2 Carbine to the AR-15 “to determine which is more suitable replacement for other shoulder weapons in selected units of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces (RVNAF).”

The Result

I don’t need to tell you the outcome. You already know the AR-15 performed best with the “small stature of the Vietnamese soldier…”. We all know that the taller U.S. advisors liked how the new rifle performed, too. While the test helped ARPA in one of its many projects assist counterinsurgents by confirming the superiority of the AR-15 to the M2 Carbine, it also proved the readiness of the AR-15.

sailor loads M16 magazines on USS Harnett County on Vàm Cỏ Đông River Vietnam War
Sailor Lawrence W. Overton loads M16 magazines using stripper clips aboard the USS Harnett County (LST-821) on the Vàm Cỏ Đông in Vietnam. Image: U.S. Navy

Analysis of the AR-15 from both U.S. Advisors and Vietnamese commanders reported the AR-15 as “extremely favorable.” The lethality of the .223 round proved to be extraordinary. Users had a high respect for the AR-15 and preferred it to all other firearms available.

US Marine with M16A1 at Beirut airport Lebanon 1983
The M16A1 continued to serve the U.S. military for many years. One is shown here in the hands of a Marine at the Beirut International Airport in Lebanon during 1983. Image: NARA

The first AR-15s in country did not have a forward assist, which is how the Air Force (the first adopter of the design) wanted the gun. The Army, however, insisted on a forward assist and originally designated the rifle the XM16E1; after the details were worked out, it was designated the M16A1.

Conclusion

The testing under Project Agile was the first time the rifle was used in Vietnam. In 1964, America’s broader involvement in Vietnam was officially begun with Congress passing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which authorized direct U.S. military involvement in the nation. The rest is history.

Categories
All About Guns Soldiering

Happiness is a warm belt fed!