|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 10:05:14 GMT -6
Billy: The effective date of an order issued by Department of the Army is the date of the General Order, or a date contained in the General Order.
The official effective date of the order you reference is 21 September 1866. The 27th Infantry was again reorganized and consolidated with the 9th Infantry on 10 March 1869.
What you want I believe is not the effective date, but the date of implementation. Sometimes these are one in the same, but in this instance I think not. More than likely it was sometime early in 1867 when the order was received and reorganization actions, if any were required, save changing insignia and so forth were taken. At the frontier posts like the ones you list more than likely the announcement was made at a formation and they just went back to business, I don't believe you will find the date, but if you do I suspect it will be in post records and there in fact may be three different dates, dates associated with the post itself. That's is why the date of the General Order is used for official lineage purposes. It matters not one whit to the Lineage and Honors Statement when the activation parade was held.
So "in effect" Fetterman and his merry band of patriots died in the 27th Infantry and in all probability did not know it.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 5, 2012 10:17:03 GMT -6
Billy: The effective date of an order issued by Department of the Army is the date of the General Order, or a date contained in the General Order. The official effective date of the order you reference is 21 September 1866. The 27th Infantry was again reorganized and consolidated with the 9th Infantry on 10 March 1869. What you want I believe is not the effective date, but the date of implementation. Sometimes these are one in the same, but in this instance I think not. More than likely it was sometime early in 1867 when the order was received and reorganization actions, if any were required, save changing insignia and so forth were taken. At the frontier posts like the ones you list more than likely the announcement was made at a formation and they just went back to business, I don't believe you will find the date, but if you do I suspect it will be in post records and there in fact may be three different dates, dates associated with the post itself. That's is why the date of the General Order is used for official lineage purposes. It matters not one whit to the Lineage and Honors Statement when the activation parade was held. Most excellent! That explains why I saw the mass transfers anywhere from October thru December! That also contributed to my false assumption regarding the fiscal year. Thanks, Billy
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 10:37:50 GMT -6
Billy: These are the reasons why tracking U S Army units can be most difficult at times. There have in fact been three different 27th Infantry Regiments during the history of the U S Army.
The first 27th Infantry was constituted 29 January 1813, and consolidated with the 11th, 25th, 29th, and 37th Infantry on 3 July 1815 to form the 6th Infantry.
The second you already know, the one in question above.
The third 27th Infantry Regiment, the Wolfhounds, was consitituted 2 February 1901 and organized 19 February 1901 at Plattsburg Barracks, New York.
It also gets confusing in the issue of Campaign Participation Credit and even in this the DA makes some gross mistakes from time to time. The 7th Infantry in today's army has long been known as the Cottonbalers, and carries the New Orleans battle honor. There was indeed a 7th Infantry at New Orleans, but it was not this 7th Infantry. There were other regular army regiments at New Orleans too, but in tracking each of their lineages on and off for the last 30 years I have not determined that any of them have a lineal connection with the present 7th Infantry, nothing nada, zip. It is a fantasy, sheer fabrication but in an army that values fantasy over fact, in an army where a one year time period equals regimental tradition, I am not surprised.
The Marines do a much better job with their history. The lineages are easy to follow. Their recording is as far as I can tell 100% accurate, and they are served by first class historians largely with military experience rather than a motley collection of academics who have little or no practical experience and wish it that way. The Army history program is a vast wasteland with every now and again a small oasis of knowledge, and many who I knew inhabiting that small oasis are now gone. Thankfully some of their good work remains.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 5, 2012 11:03:39 GMT -6
One more small question about organization in the 7th. Were Reno and Benteen counted also as staffmembers or were they just Company officers(senior).
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 5, 2012 11:11:02 GMT -6
I really can't work out the US Army lineage system....Links seem to be established by whim or coincidence...I know our Army has been cursed by amalgamations & re-naming,but at least the line of descent isn't fictional............ Ulan,As far as I know,Reno was a staff officer,Benteen the senior company commander.......
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 11:29:37 GMT -6
Steve: If you have specific questions about specific units I would be happy to address them. By in large you are correct the U S Army is an exercise in fiction. There is a method in it but the method is so very complicated and convoluted that the Army does not understand it itself. Originally it was a well meaning effort to copy or try and duplicate the British system, a sort of Cardwell on steroids I have a copy of the original 1957 document in my files and it is well tjhought out and straightforward. In implementation the guts were carved out for lack of funds and only the hide remains. A lot of rhetoric and no substance. Regardless if you have lineage questions I have many, not all of the "official" answers.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 5, 2012 11:54:34 GMT -6
What threw me was any link between the Special Forces & the WWII 1st SSF............
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 13:33:28 GMT -6
Steve: It is a manufactured link. In 1957 the Army tried to create a parent regiment for all of the special forces groups. There was really nothing available that filled the bill.
The Special Forces mission as envisioned at the time was one of behind the lines in hostile territory, linking up with, training and if necessary leading insurgent forces against a hostile occupying power. The perfect fit would have been the Jedberg Teams in Europe and the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) operational detachments in Burma and elsewhere in the far east. The OSS was not Army though, there was no official tie, so even though they were the most likely candidates they were off limits. OSS was a civilian organization to which Army personel, as well as Navy and Marines were detailed.
The 1st Special Service Force was a joint American/Canadian affair formed for one mission and while never used for that mission turned out to be the best light infantry we have ever fielded, including the Rangers. In 1945 the 1st SSF was disbanded and the American members went to form the 474th Regimental Combat Team along with Ranger remnants and the 99th Battalion (Norwegian) Combat Team.. This unit was inactivated shortly after the war. It was later reactivated in 1954 as the 74th Infantry at Fort Devens Mass. Inactivated in 1956.
In addition to the behind the lines work the army of 1957 thought that all special operations were universal. Special Forces could also do the job of the Rangers (moderate scale assault), the Alamo Scouts (deep recon) and perhaps a few other functions that I have yet to recall. This was wishful thinking on their part in that while all these fall under special operations they are quite different in scope and required skill set.
So happily the Army set about this self delusion organizing each of the special forces groups as an element of the one fictional parent regiment the 1st Special Forces. Each of the groups were "officially" refered to as ___Special Forces Group, 1st Special Forces. This fiction lasted until, Oh maybe about a week until the Army decided they needed Long Range Recon Patrol (LRRP) units. Such units were activated as an element of a hodgepodge of parent regiments, until the Army said no we need one parent regiment for them all, thus was born the 75th Infantry from the dusty old files of the past, and over time that evolved into the 75th Ranger Regiment of today.
It is all fiction, made up stuff to suit the demands of various generals, sooth the feelings of the various vet organizations, and as a in general feel good for the army. There is a scant bit of truth or sense in the whole mix.
So to answer you question directly There is none. There should be none, and what you see is an example of historical make believe.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 5, 2012 14:00:46 GMT -6
What I thought.......Well-meaning,but about as historically-based as Hollywood ...Do the Rangers trace back to Rogers?....'Cos that gives them a British ancestry ....No problem...The Royal Scots only got to be the First Foot from their French service from 1633............
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 14:05:01 GMT -6
Further for Steve: I am a great admirer of the Brit system. It is very brittle, not taking well to changes in force structure size and the changing requirements over the centuries. One thing it does though is it remains a familiy where US units are a fiction.
The US Army used to be this way also, that is until 1921. Before 1921 when a unit ceased to exist it was disbanded, meaning removed from the rolls of the Army. This could be anything from sorry fellows you are out of a job to the consolidation of one unit with another, what you would term ammalgamation there in the UK. Some good historical units were lost in this process but it was mostly the also rans the wartime volunteer regiments and the like. Some of them had good histories too, and it is a shame that there was no legal way at the time to preserve them. Many National Guard (then organized militia ) units were saved because they belong to the States and some have been in existence going back to Myles Standish in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Very few remain in the NG with Revolutionary War Honors. More remain with Civil War Honors, The thing that aids in this process is that National Guard history is govered by location not designation. Therefore the 3728th Mess Kit Repair Company located in Willow Grove Pennsylvania could be the modern designation of the 22nd Light Horse Troop of the City and Environs of Willow Grove and the Delaware River Plantations and Volunteer Fire Company who fired the first round at Yorktown. (Needless to say made up unit designators)
In 1921 all that changed due largely to the desire of WWI vets to preserve in some way the units they had served with in France. Thus was born the process of activation, inactivation, reactivation for all eternity. The unit then became the unit colors and not the people. We still refer to this as flagging a unit. There is not a unit in the Regular United States Army that is in reality a continuation of people. Any unit that has been inactivated even once, or the quaint American practice of "transfer less personnel and equipment" (meaning they sent the flag somewhere else via UPS) looses the unit family, the unit cohesion, and then it all becomes meaningless fiction
Even when you guys consolidate a unit it becomes a marraige of convience or nescessity (shotgun or otherwise) and the people remain no matter how troubled the marriage may be with family feuds eventually being worked out.
So good luck understanding us colonials. We don't understand ourselves.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 14:27:54 GMT -6
Further and Further For Steve: The Rangers (again fiction but what the hell) trace their "official" history to a meeting there in the UK between Lucian Truscott and William Orlando Darby. and thus a neat idea, an American Commando was born. Along the way they became entangled with the 5307 Composite Unit (Provisional) a Wingate/Mountbatten idea at the Quebec Conference
Rangers, at least the word here in the States trace some loose connection to King Phillip's War. Roger's was a Johnny Come Lately, Various irregular (sort of special ops) units have used the name like Mosby's Rangers of the ACW, the Gonzalez Mounted Ranging Company of the Texas Revolution and so forth. Then there are the Texas Rangers, supposedly the oldest organized law enforcement body in our country. I would love to see the documentation on that but they are old going back to the Austin Colony in the late 1820's
So a direct answer to your question is - only in their dreams.
There is a Brit connection to Rogers though, the 60th Rifles (Royal Americans) later the Green Jackets and I think today part of the Light Infantry Regiment in the UK.
The Royal Scots: Is that not the "If we had been guarding Him, He would not have rolled that stone away from the front of his tomb and got away bunch"?
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 5, 2012 15:04:02 GMT -6
Aye.."Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard".....
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 5, 2012 16:50:31 GMT -6
Steve: There is no regimental system designed by man that works. Regimental systems like the Cardwell System were good only the day the general order was signed. The day after outside factors like strategic situations, money, technology, money, favoritism, money,old school ties, and did I mention money chipped away like a woodpecker on steriods.
One day the 7th Cavalry will disappear from the rolls of the United States Army, gone forever, a dim page in history. It will diappear just as surely as the fine old, and I mean older than dirt, Scotish Regiments of the British Army have disappeared as seperate entities and are now grouped under the Royal Regiment of Scotland.
Why did this happen:
Why did machine gun battalions disappear - Outlived their usefulness, weapons system integrated into lower echelons. Why did Division Artillery disappear - Outlived its usefullness, weapons systems integrated into maneuver brigades Why are Army Headquarters famous units like First and Third Army reduced to an office building and a patch - Echelon no longer required for tactical purposes. First Army Headquarters might just as well be called "Regional Center for Command, Control, and Support of Reserve Components" It's an office building, not a unit.
So these things will continue as long as man raises his hand against another. The trend is smaller and smaller, where the relatively few can do the job as well and usually much better than the multitude of only a relatively few years ago
There will be weeping. There will be a great outcry. There will be attemps to save . But in the end it will be to no avail. One day the tactical command echelon of an army will be no higher than brigade. There may be some question about that. How many named and numbered regiments has the British Army lost since Cardwell circa late 1800's? See what I mean. It has nothing to do with Labor or Conservative government. It has nothing to do with a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House. It has to do with man and his infiinite quest to kill people more efficiently.
|
|
|
Post by steve1956 on May 6, 2012 4:31:19 GMT -6
Completely agree...Friends wonder why I don't get all involved with whatever the latest "save the Royal Loamshires" campaign is.....Because the media have no idea of the military differences between today and the World Wars,(some still dream of a golden age of masses of conscript infantry batallions)..............
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 6, 2012 7:44:07 GMT -6
Bigger is not better Steve. Better is better,
|
|