On Guns and Ammo TV, they covered the remarkable heroism of Sgt. York's actions. They mentioned that he engaged 7 Germans with 7 rounds of his 1911, putting them all down. The part that intrigues me, is that he supposedly started with the furthest enemy soldier, and continued shooting them until he shot the closest. What would the reasoning be behind that? I assumed that engaging the closest enemy first would make most sense, thinking he was the greatest threat at the time. Am I wrong in this thinking? Thanks-
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support -
Not receiving emails?
We're currently aware of an issue with our email provider and working to fix it as quickly as we can! Appreciate your patience here!
View thread
Fieldcraft Question about Sgt. York's actions
- Thread starter Fatelvis
- Start date
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
according to the legend he was shooting the guy in the rear-most position, so the other guys wouldn't know they were getting shot.
according to the legend he was shooting the guy in the rear-most position, so the other guys wouldn't know they were getting shot.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
When Sgt. Alvin York was talking about shooting from rear to front he was drawing from his hunting experiance ( he would shoot a flock of turkeys in this manner so not to disturbe the birds by droping the first one and letting the others see it). I think he used this method when eleminating the machine gun nest that was pinning them down with a rifle but not necessarly with the pistol. I would think it is second nature to eleminate the closest threat while in a close fight. You should resome about him he was a impressive man.
When Sgt. Alvin York was talking about shooting from rear to front he was drawing from his hunting experiance ( he would shoot a flock of turkeys in this manner so not to disturbe the birds by droping the first one and letting the others see it). I think he used this method when eleminating the machine gun nest that was pinning them down with a rifle but not necessarly with the pistol. I would think it is second nature to eleminate the closest threat while in a close fight. You should resome about him he was a impressive man.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
From a non-combat perspective, engaging the smallest (most distant) targets first seems more practical as less time is required to engage the closing or closer (larger) targets. The psychological angle, of not alerting the other targets of the situation is an additional advantage to have been considered.
From a non-combat perspective, engaging the smallest (most distant) targets first seems more practical as less time is required to engage the closing or closer (larger) targets. The psychological angle, of not alerting the other targets of the situation is an additional advantage to have been considered.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding the rear to front work was done with his rifle, for the reasons stated by jbell.
</div></div>
Actually Guns and Ammo and Handguns programs specified he did it with his 1911. Handguns actually set up a recreation of the scenario to shoot with thier 1911, to appreciate his actions by running through it themselves.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">My understanding the rear to front work was done with his rifle, for the reasons stated by jbell.
</div></div>
Actually Guns and Ammo and Handguns programs specified he did it with his 1911. Handguns actually set up a recreation of the scenario to shoot with thier 1911, to appreciate his actions by running through it themselves.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
[/quote]
Actually Guns and Ammo and Handguns programs specified he did it with his 1911. Handguns actually set up a recreation of the scenario to shoot with thier 1911, to appreciate his actions by running through it themselves. [/quote]
And we believe everything those guys tell us? I once attended a match and was given the hotel room of a "famous gun writer" because he didn't show up. A few months later he wrote in an article about how he won the very same match with a so and so gun. It was a very calculated risk for him, as there were only 150 shooters there and many of them probably didn't even think any differently.
As for Sgt York, his deeds were truly extraordinary in light of the fact that he was originally a conscientious objector.
[/quote]
Actually Guns and Ammo and Handguns programs specified he did it with his 1911. Handguns actually set up a recreation of the scenario to shoot with thier 1911, to appreciate his actions by running through it themselves. [/quote]
And we believe everything those guys tell us? I once attended a match and was given the hotel room of a "famous gun writer" because he didn't show up. A few months later he wrote in an article about how he won the very same match with a so and so gun. It was a very calculated risk for him, as there were only 150 shooters there and many of them probably didn't even think any differently.
As for Sgt York, his deeds were truly extraordinary in light of the fact that he was originally a conscientious objector.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
About SGT.York-The why and how isn't as important as the fact that our P.O.S. education system doesn't even mention the deeds and accomplishments of outstanding U.S. Heroes like SGT.Alvin York.
About SGT.York-The why and how isn't as important as the fact that our P.O.S. education system doesn't even mention the deeds and accomplishments of outstanding U.S. Heroes like SGT.Alvin York.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
I read one of those gun rag articles that discussed the 1911 and the CMOH. The article said that in the MOH write up it is worded in a way that leads you to conclude York used his 1911 more than his rifle. It makes sense for close in work, and was certainly faster than cylcling a bolt, but still some amazing markmanship.
As to your comment downhill- Yes, the why and how is important. An act of violence without context is just violence. Sgt. Yorks actions were heroic because of the situation, and what hung in the balance. What the schools fail to teach we as parents must step up and pass on. Its just as important to note Yorks original stance on war as his actions in the war. Every hero is more than just the one act, they are a person and have many lessons to teach.
I read one of those gun rag articles that discussed the 1911 and the CMOH. The article said that in the MOH write up it is worded in a way that leads you to conclude York used his 1911 more than his rifle. It makes sense for close in work, and was certainly faster than cylcling a bolt, but still some amazing markmanship.
As to your comment downhill- Yes, the why and how is important. An act of violence without context is just violence. Sgt. Yorks actions were heroic because of the situation, and what hung in the balance. What the schools fail to teach we as parents must step up and pass on. Its just as important to note Yorks original stance on war as his actions in the war. Every hero is more than just the one act, they are a person and have many lessons to teach.
Re: Question about Sgt. York's actions
Chances are no one will ever know the answer to many of these questions to a certainty because the record is too fragmentary. A college acquaintance of mine (now a professor of history) was made curator and archivist of all York's personal documents by his widow, and I can assure you these have been poured over with greatest interest, so it's highly unlikely that anything earthshattering remains to be discovered.
A lot of detail like this has been lost to history, primarily for three reasons. First, believe it or not, is lack of interest. To understand that you have to consider where York lived. Twenty years after WWI ended, the film studio scrapped plans to shoot the opening scenes of Sergeant York on location because its infrastructure was too primitive to support their production needs. <span style="font-style: italic">Twenty years later!!</span> So York lived out his life surrounded by simple mountain folk, the majority of whom probably never saw a breech loading rifle until WWII and couldn't give a hoot in a holler whether he was carrying a Springfield or an Enfield on that day.
Second, the young Alvin York regarded his military service as something that was necessary but regrettable. When he did speak or write of it, he generally only addressed it in broad terms and avoided any embellishment.
Third, by the time of WWII (and the release of the movie), York had risen to a station where he didn't have to talk to or speak of anything he didn't want to. And he figured he'd already done enough talking about the war so he closed the book on that chapter of his life.
As for the front-to-back business, what I've heard is that York knew that soldiers wearied by seemingly endless trench warfare tended to get careless about seeking cover when they believed they were safely beyond small arms engagement range. Over the course of the war, that range had proved to be about 200 yards. But they would duck double-quick when they saw one of their buddies get smacked in the head by an ought-six. York knew he was well-capable of "cuttin' plumb center" at well beyond that range so he reasoned the same tactic he had used for taking an entire flock of turkey also would work against the Germans, provided there was a group of them foolish enough to expose themselves at, say, five or six hundred yards distance. That supposedly is the origin of the back-to-front tactic. I can't rightly figure how that would apply to a bayonet charge but I suspect myth and legend has crossed lines with G&A's reality.
Chances are no one will ever know the answer to many of these questions to a certainty because the record is too fragmentary. A college acquaintance of mine (now a professor of history) was made curator and archivist of all York's personal documents by his widow, and I can assure you these have been poured over with greatest interest, so it's highly unlikely that anything earthshattering remains to be discovered.
A lot of detail like this has been lost to history, primarily for three reasons. First, believe it or not, is lack of interest. To understand that you have to consider where York lived. Twenty years after WWI ended, the film studio scrapped plans to shoot the opening scenes of Sergeant York on location because its infrastructure was too primitive to support their production needs. <span style="font-style: italic">Twenty years later!!</span> So York lived out his life surrounded by simple mountain folk, the majority of whom probably never saw a breech loading rifle until WWII and couldn't give a hoot in a holler whether he was carrying a Springfield or an Enfield on that day.
Second, the young Alvin York regarded his military service as something that was necessary but regrettable. When he did speak or write of it, he generally only addressed it in broad terms and avoided any embellishment.
Third, by the time of WWII (and the release of the movie), York had risen to a station where he didn't have to talk to or speak of anything he didn't want to. And he figured he'd already done enough talking about the war so he closed the book on that chapter of his life.
As for the front-to-back business, what I've heard is that York knew that soldiers wearied by seemingly endless trench warfare tended to get careless about seeking cover when they believed they were safely beyond small arms engagement range. Over the course of the war, that range had proved to be about 200 yards. But they would duck double-quick when they saw one of their buddies get smacked in the head by an ought-six. York knew he was well-capable of "cuttin' plumb center" at well beyond that range so he reasoned the same tactic he had used for taking an entire flock of turkey also would work against the Germans, provided there was a group of them foolish enough to expose themselves at, say, five or six hundred yards distance. That supposedly is the origin of the back-to-front tactic. I can't rightly figure how that would apply to a bayonet charge but I suspect myth and legend has crossed lines with G&A's reality.
Similar threads
