The US Army: Why so different?

[DougRichards]

A tradition that should be revived in the Guard....

 

Where can we get Busbys and shakos in this day and age?

 

 

Falken

 

The British were given a number of bearskins by China not that long ago, unfortunately the bears that provided the skins did not like the idea

[binder001]

In summation you can see that the "simplified" US Army stems from multiple factors. The US as a representative republic had a deep distrust of a large standing army. Being that the US economy also stems from a long tradition of "Yankee traders" and industrialists, the US really never wanted to have the investment of a large standing army, either. Only the Stalinist ambitions of our post=Korea antagonists and the fears that they generated has kept a large standing force in existence. Look at our history, after each major conflict the US has to mobilize maddly, then just as quickly strips down to its underwear as far as keeping the force around after the conflict ends.

 

A further factor influencing the US Army's organization is that they are not funded by "patrons" or regions, they are funded by a lage debating team that wants "cheap" over "pretty". Congress has to be approached to purchase the pretty uniforms and political realities kept thing basic. The "Lancers" and "Zouaves" that appeared briefly were primarily state units.

 

Another factor about the "shiny" armies of Europe, not only the lack of generations of aristocracy, but the vast distances of the USA. The European armies looked very pretty on the parade ground. During most of the US Army's existence it has been scattered around the country in regional posts hosting as little as a troop or company. When the Spanish-American War started it was found that many regiments had not been fully assembled together since the Civil War.

 

As stated, many units do not trace their traditions back like European regiments. The US Army generally does not dwell on unit history like the British. A unit may be "1st Bn, 34th Armor" one day, then be changed to "2nd Squadron, 5th Cavalry" at the stroke of a pen.

 

Lastly, as was mentioned earlier, our army was for many years not oriented to a European battlefield but towrds internal security and border protection. The various native tribes weren't that impressed with fancy uniforms. In the West the uniforms that were issued were barely up to the task, many troops had to obtain better shirts or trousers for field wear through private purchase.

 

Earlier a comment was made about the US Army still wearing their blue uniforms long after the British had gone to khaki. Remember that before war broke out in 1898 the Army had adopted a khaki field uniform. Unfortunately the new uniforms had not even gotten out to alll of the regular army. The militia units did have to go to war in their traditional blue uniforms, but a number of troops were wearing khaki.

[Leo Niehorster]

"Different" types of US Army troops (at least in my time) including training and even uniforms:

— Special Forces,

— Military Police,

— Airborne,

— Armour,

— etc.

 

So there is a differentiation, albeit in modern terms.

[Richard Lindquist]

I was not arguing that the men had to pay for it themselves, but remarking that some US militia uniforms rivalled those of the European powers in ostenatiousness.

 

 

The common militia didn't have those kinds of uniforms. It was only where the militia was a social organization as well as a militia units that you saw the heights of ostentatious uniforms.

 

Think of Shriner or Knights of columbus type regalia for non-military counterparts.

 

You had to be a person of some means to be a private in the New York Seventh Infantry or the Richmond Light Infantry Blues. It was like belonging to an exclusive yacht club.

[Archie Pellagio]

The British were given a number of bearskins by China not that long ago, unfortunately the bears that provided the skins did not like the idea

 

Aren't the bear skins used by the British all from Canadian black bears culled as part of pest management anyway?

 

Didn't they also try and go synthetic a few years back, but it was too hot or similar?

[SCFalken]

The issue with the Militias was that the States were unable and/or unwilling to maintain them (except for several Governors, on both sides, in the immediate runup to the ACW), so the "Volunteer" militias (like the NY City Guard or Mississippi Rifles), mentioned previously, were the primary nucleus for the State forces (assuming that they could be induced to cooperate).

 

However, the Volunteer Militia seems to have been a transitory social movement, and faded out in the decades after the ACW. The resulting mess required, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, the Dick Act and the Army to essentially manage the State Militias (becoming the NGUS), with the "State Defense Forces" being left to the States (and subsequently ignored).

 

Was it just lack of interest that killed the Volunteer units, or the increased sophistication of military units? Or something else.

 

 

Falken

[DougRichards]

There was allegedly a New York unit in the early US Civil War period that got hold of some Coldstream Guard uniforms, so its perhaps not as out of what as you might assume.

 

The really bizarre one was the New York Zouaves.....

From a fancy dress shop perhaps?

[Delta tank 6]

BillB wrote:

There was a separation between that and what went on during serious mil campaigning overseas, where practicality, comfort and even a degree of camouflage generally held sway. Take a look at what the Brit troops wore in the Americas during the AWI, or in India or Africa, not much bling at all and essentially similar to the US Army practises folk are talking about on the Frontier.

 

IIRC during the French and Indian War, aka The Seven Years War, some British Army units in the Colonies, adopted deer skin leggings that were thigh length and they cut their uniform coats short to the waist. They made these modifications to their uniforms in order to get through the vegetation that was prevalent in their area of operations.

 

Mike

[BillB]

BillB wrote:

 

IIRC during the French and Indian War, aka The Seven Years War, some British Army units in the Colonies, adopted deer skin leggings that were thigh length and they cut their uniform coats short to the waist. They made these modifications to their uniforms in order to get through the vegetation that was prevalent in their area of operations.

 

Mike

Yup, and they did similar in the Peninsula, India and elsewhere too, as did the French in their colonial campaigns.

 

Good to see you back Mike, not seen you for a while.

 

BillB

[Delta tank 6]

Yup, and they did similar in the Peninsula, India and elsewhere too, as did the French in their colonial campaigns.

 

Good to see you back Mike, not seen you for a while.

 

BillB

 

Will, I have been busy and when I get a break at work, this site is blocked by the filter. And when I do get on and start reading a thread, anything I could of added has already been published! In the last nine years or so, my old Army buddies and I have been doing "Staff Rides", relaxed staff rides, scotch and beer for refreshments at night around a fire, but we have done a couple on the French and Indian War, very interesting, we walked part of Forbes Road at Rohr's Gap and of course Fort Pitt and the Bushy Run Battlefield. Last year we attended the Fort Ticonderoga War College (two and half days of presentations on the French and Indian War)and we are going again this year. One of my buddies sent this when I queried my brain trust after posting:

 

Lord George Howe ordered that his troops cut the skirts of their coats but I don't believe that innovation survived him. Howe also ordered tomahawks to be substituted for the standard hanger carried by the troops.

 

This wasn't all that unusual. Braddock had his men leave their uniform coats in Alexandria and they marched in their waistcoats.

 

Deerskin leggings were used but the material preferred by Indians and frontiersmen was wool because wet leather was not all that great to wear from a comfort or insulation standpoint. The wool leggings were manufactured in England and were wool tubes that were gartered above the knee. The deerskin leggings were gartered above the knee and were tied to a belt.

 

This isn't as much of an innovation as some would think. Recall that the standard uniform was low shoes and woolen stockings covered by buttoned gaiters. The substitution of leggings for gaiters would have been pretty natural as gaiters were worn out on campaign.

 

Another point. I'm reading a book called Redcoat: The British Soldier and the War in the Americas 1755-1763. The idea that the British Army was a totalitarian, hidebound organization, which is often the undercurrent in discussions, is simply balderdash. The units in the Americas adapted quickly and well to the environment they fought in, both at the troop and officer levels, because otherwise you got killed.

 

I guess I will have to get that book and read it! The General Howe he mentioned above was killed just outside of Fort Ticonderoga, but everyone knew that!

 

Mike

[swerve]

The other factor to bear in mind is that most of the European regiments were centuries old at the time of the foundation of the Republic of the USA - They carried a lot of legacy from times when they were basically roving mercenary bands and tended to stick with a good thing.

Not so. Most regiments didn't have a long history. They tended to be raised & disbanded frequently. One of my ancestors, for example, served (& probably died, at Cartagena) in the 47th Foot, AKA Colonel Winyards Regiment of Marines, which was raised in 1739 & disbanded in 1748, along with the other army marine regiments. The 58th Foot was then renumbered 47th, just to confuse things. Pretty normal.

 

"Roving mercenary bands" were things from another era, long obsolete by the late 18th century, when regular state armies were the rule. When they'd still existed, they'd usually lasted no longer than the career of a single commander. Few, if any, of them gave rise to regular regiments.

[Delta tank 6]

Another response from a guy who has studied the French and Indian War for a long time (lives in Pittsburgh) comments on British uniforms and how they adapted or did not adapt to their circumstances. Mike

 

Depends on how you define “legging”. If you mean an item that covers the legs from mid-thigh to foot top that hung from a belt, I am not aware of any British regular regiment that wore such an item as part of its uniform. Although Rogers Rangers men did on many occasions as did other “ranger” units and provincial militias. I want to say the 1st Virginia Regiment under Washington was one of those but I would have to check. Also in many cases officers and men from regular regiments were assigned or attached to some of these units and adopted their dress and equipment.

 

I think some people both now and back then use the term legging to mean any covering from foot to thigh even though I consider something that is buttoned on and not hung from the belt to be a gaiter. Another term used is “Indian Stockings” which I don’t have a clear definition of. I assume it refers to some sort of cloth legging (hung from the belt) that, as Bill describes, was sold to the Indians by traders, the same as the linen shirts and metal items they had become dependant on.

 

Uniforms varied from unit to unit, by season, by circumstance and by year. Anybody fighting in the North American forests has to have some substantial covering for legs – equivalent to “upland game” pants. General Loudon writes in a letter quoted in one of the appendices in the Roger’s Diary, that “leggings” are necessary to prevent cut and scratches which quickly become infected or grow maggots. Some commanders figured this out more quickly than others.

 

The coverings seem to have run the board from the wool stockings worn by the Highlanders, to high (mid thigh) gaiters made of canvas like material or other strong cloth, to leggings made from leather, wool, or a felt or flannel like cloth. The Osprey book on Monongahela shows the 44th Regiment wearing what looks like brown leather gaiters (they had buttons and garters and were not tied to a belt) that came up to their lower thigh. The same book shows them wearing white canvas like gaiters to mid-thigh. Several sources indicate that units like the Rangers, that fought or marched during the winter, wore leather leggings over wool or flannel like trousers. Although some other sources say they still wore the breechclout. As Bill mentioned, Howe did give those orders to all the Queens men before Ticonderoga. Also at the same time the 80th Light Infantry had been established and their uniform was brown, which short brim hats, and I believe rifled muskets, tomahawks, knives and what appears to be high brown canvas or heavy linen gaiters.

 

By the end of the war, towards Pontiac’s War, my impression is that some units such as the Rangers and 60th Foot and maybe the 80th retained many of the modifications but that others had reverted to more traditional uniforms. If the troops were basically manning the camps, redoubts and forts along Braddock and Forbes road the penalty for the traditional uniforms might not have been as severe.

[DougRichards]

Not so. Most regiments didn't have a long history. They tended to be raised & disbanded frequently. One of my ancestors, for example, served (& probably died, at Cartagena) in the 47th Foot, AKA Colonel Winyards Regiment of Marines, which was raised in 1739 & disbanded in 1748, along with the other army marine regiments. The 58th Foot was then renumbered 47th, just to confuse things. Pretty normal.

 

"Roving mercenary bands" were things from another era, long obsolete by the late 18th century, when regular state armies were the rule. When they'd still existed, they'd usually lasted no longer than the career of a single commander. Few, if any, of them gave rise to regular regiments.

 

Some Scottish regiments on both sides of the 45-47 Jacobite Rebellion were little more than impressed groups of men serving under their lairds. Even many of the British Regiments were named after their commander at the time, and only later received a British Regimental Number.

[Colin Williams]

Because, contrary to a lot of people's beliefs, the U.S. Army was one of necessity...

 

I think all armies are born (and often reborn) of necessity. Most of the unusual or seemingly extraneous stuff is usually legacy from earlier necessity. Comparing the US Army to European armies in the 19th Century, the primary differences can be traced to (1) longer Army histories in Europe, (2) the existence of a militarized aristocracy, and (3) the role of a typical European army in politics.

 

The European armies of the 19th (and 20th) century were essentially born in the early Modern period of the 1600s, which is the time when national forces under the direct control of a monarch began to take shape and many of the earliest European regiments with continuity into the 20th century were formed. Armies of the period around 1700 were actually fairly simple. Beyond the basic subdivisions into infantry, cavalry and artillery and the occasional distinction for subunits like grenadiers, there wasn't much beyond diverse and colorful uniforms that were beginning to be standardized into national color schemes. The more unusual variations came later in the 18th century as the Hapsburgs adapted the irregular units of the Ottoman frontier to European conflicts, harrassing the French and other opponents with swarms of Grenzers and Hussars. The Hapsburg opponents followed suit, and soon there were light infantry and cavalry units of all types within most European armies. Combine this with the aristocratic need (and financial ability) to amuse themselves while taking the traditional turn in the army (especially cavalry), and you have the excuse for all sorts of exotic variations on the theme. In addition, colorful and exotic military units added to the pomp and prestige of the monarch, serving a political purpose that wasn't needed in the United States until much later.

 

The first US army units were formed at a time when their antecedents in the British army were relatively bland in terms of organization, at least for the infantry. Cavalry was always little used in America, and we had no aristocracy to place in brightly uniformed mounted regiments. By the time of WW1, the original requirements for the varied Europenan units had generally passed, but tradition is not easily set aside. In addition, European countries tended to fight each other much more often than we fought any opponent within the western military tradition. For example, we fought Britain, Britain, Mexico, ourselves, and Spain for a total of about 17 years within a 140 year period before WW1. Over the same period of time France fought more than 30 years of European warfare. In addition, the colonial opponents of the European powers in the 18th and early 19th century were more conventionally organized than the aboriginal resistance confronted in North America or encountered later in Africa. It seems that this experience encouraged the European add to their diversity (Zouaves anyone?) while retaining the legacy units.

 

I can't imagine how we could possibly have ever developed European military diversity without a long military legacy and an aristocracy, but perhaps more early episodes of conflict with European powers would have led to some similar developments.

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

Looking at the development of the US Army, from the founding on up to the end of the 19th Century (and very early 1900s), why was it so different from all the European armies? Especially the British and French armies which served as the template for much of the military thought of the era.

 

Thoughts?

 

A great American once said:

 

" We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold! But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw "Old Yeller?" Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end?

 

Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure.

 

I cried my eyes out. So we're all dogfaces, we're all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1! Now we don't have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don't have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud."

 

And who can argue with that?

Edited February 8, 2011 by Hittite Under The Bridge

[Steven P Allen]

All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud."[/b]

 

 

Make sure you stretch out the "OL" in that "soldier," Dwight, thus: "sooollllll-dier . . ."

 

[BP]

Will, I have been busy and when I get a break at work, this site is blocked by the filter. And when I do get on and start reading a thread, anything I could of added has already been published! In the last nine years or so, my old Army buddies and I have been doing "Staff Rides", relaxed staff rides, scotch and beer for refreshments at night around a fire, but we have done a couple on the French and Indian War, very interesting, we walked part of Forbes Road at Rohr's Gap and of course Fort Pitt and the Bushy Run Battlefield. Last year we attended the Fort Ticonderoga War College (two and half days of presentations on the French and Indian War)and we are going again this year. One of my buddies sent this when I queried my brain trust after posting:

 

 

Mike

 

There is a tremendous amount of history around there (French and Indian War), basically forgotten. But it had enormous impact on what would happen a few decades later, as the entire cast of characters was present, but the relationships changed.

 

Had a distant ancestor captured with Washington at Great Meadows/Fort Necessity. Also find it amazing that the South Carolina Company (independent British regulars, but basically modern reinforced platoons) would field a composite company, leave their Georgia and Carolina coastal forts, and march all the way up to the frontier, through what was nearly impenetrable wilderness at the time. Talk about a journey!

[BillB]

A great American once said:

 

" We're all very different people. We're not Watusi. We're not Spartans. We're Americans, with a capital 'A', huh? You know what that means? Do ya? That means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the world. We are the wretched refuse. We're the underdog. We're mutts! Here's proof: his nose is cold! But there's no animal that's more faithful, that's more loyal, more loveable than the mutt. Who saw "Old Yeller?" Who cried when Old Yeller got shot at the end?

 

Nobody cried when Old Yeller got shot? I'm sure.

 

I cried my eyes out. So we're all dogfaces, we're all very, very different, but there is one thing that we all have in common: we were all stupid enough to enlist in the Army. We're mutants. There's something wrong with us, something very, very wrong with us. Something seriously wrong with us - we're soldiers. But we're American soldiers! We've been kicking ass for 200 years! We're 10 and 1! Now we don't have to worry about whether or not we practiced. We don't have to worry about whether Captain Stillman wants to have us hung. All we have to do is to be the great American fighting soldier that is inside each one of us. Now do what I do, and say what I say. And make me proud."

 

And who can argue with that?

Anybody who's seen the rest of that film?

 

BillB

[Hittite Under The Bridge]

Anybody who's seen the rest of that film?

 

BillB

 

Jesus, Bill, do you always go for the jugular?

[BP]

Jesus, Bill, do you always go for the jugular?

 

Don't worry man. He just joined before he got drafted.

[Richard Lindquist]

I think all armies are born (and often reborn) of necessity. Most of the unusual or seemingly extraneous stuff is usually legacy from earlier necessity. Comparing the US Army to European armies in the 19th Century, the primary differences can be traced to (1) longer Army histories in Europe, (2) the existence of a militarized aristocracy, and (3) the role of a typical European army in politics.

 

The European armies of the 19th (and 20th) century were essentially born in the early Modern period of the 1600s, which is the time when national forces under the direct control of a monarch began to take shape and many of the earliest European regiments with continuity into the 20th century were formed. Armies of the period around 1700 were actually fairly simple. Beyond the basic subdivisions into infantry, cavalry and artillery and the occasional distinction for subunits like grenadiers, there wasn't much beyond diverse and colorful uniforms that were beginning to be standardized into national color schemes. The more unusual variations came later in the 18th century as the Hapsburgs adapted the irregular units of the Ottoman frontier to European conflicts, harrassing the French and other opponents with swarms of Grenzers and Hussars. The Hapsburg opponents followed suit, and soon there were light infantry and cavalry units of all types within most European armies. Combine this with the aristocratic need (and financial ability) to amuse themselves while taking the traditional turn in the army (especially cavalry), and you have the excuse for all sorts of exotic variations on the theme. In addition, colorful and exotic military units added to the pomp and prestige of the monarch, serving a political purpose that wasn't needed in the United States until much later.

 

The first US army units were formed at a time when their antecedents in the British army were relatively bland in terms of organization, at least for the infantry. Cavalry was always little used in America, and we had no aristocracy to place in brightly uniformed mounted regiments. By the time of WW1, the original requirements for the varied Europenan units had generally passed, but tradition is not easily set aside. In addition, European countries tended to fight each other much more often than we fought any opponent within the western military tradition. For example, we fought Britain, Britain, Mexico, ourselves, and Spain for a total of about 17 years within a 140 year period before WW1. Over the same period of time France fought more than 30 years of European warfare. In addition, the colonial opponents of the European powers in the 18th and early 19th century were more conventionally organized than the aboriginal resistance confronted in North America or encountered later in Africa. It seems that this experience encouraged the European add to their diversity (Zouaves anyone?) while retaining the legacy units.

 

I can't imagine how we could possibly have ever developed European military diversity without a long military legacy and an aristocracy, but perhaps more early episodes of conflict with European powers would have led to some similar developments.

 

Except for those seventeen years of war, the US Army mostly operated by companies where a fort might contain two companies out if ten in a regiment while another fort might have only a single company. Regimental commanders rarely saw their regiments The 7th Cavalry commander was on detached duty and LTC Custer (Regt XO) led the regiment at Little Big Horn.

 

A good book on the late 19th century US Army is "Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay" by Don Rickey, Jr.