|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 18:53:17 GMT -6
Exactly. Each society develops along its own unique lines as they see the need to. I would suspect that were these wars to have lasted thirty to fifty years longer you would have seen a rapid advancement toward a more western style of fighting, and the absorbsion of technology. As an example the tribes in the most remote regions of Afghanistan have automatic weapons, cell phones, internet accesss, and many of the trappings of the western world. They developed none of them. They adapted to the tools of their enemies out of necessity, and they are as a result much more formidable fighters than they were fifty years ago. I think had the wars lasted longer we would have seen more of that here. What were they one generation, maybe only a half generation from bow to repeater?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 22:44:05 GMT -6
Richard: May I call to your attention pages 213-217 of 1862 Cavalry Tactics by COL Philip St, George Cooke, 2nd Dragoons (later Major General USA). Not the current manual in 1876, but close enough for you to get the general idea.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 1, 2012 0:19:30 GMT -6
I would suspect that were these wars to have lasted thirty to fifty years longer you would have seen a rapid advancement ]toward a more western style of fighting, and the absorbsion of technology. As an example the tribes in the most remote regions of Afghanistan have automatic weapons, cell phones, internet accesss, and many of the trappings of the western world. They developed none of them. They adapted to the tools of their enemies out of necessity, and they are as a result much more formidable fighters than they were fifty years ago. I think had the wars lasted longer we would have seen more of that here. What were they one generation, maybe only a half generation from bow to repeater?
If I am correct, the above statement has nothing to do with command and control. It only describes tools used with command and control. Or are you pointing out that there was command in 1876 but no control once separation takes place. The lack of a radio means they no longer have control. Right?
Then it also looks like the Indians do have command and control. By staying together they were able to communicate and leave Reno to fight Custer.
I did take the time to look up the definition of Command and Control. The way I see it now is Command and control CAN be voluntary and does not need to be forced. Shooting soldiers does not guarantee command and control. In fact it might show a failure of command and control.
Both seem to be command and control in there infancy. The Army is still far more advanced.
Custer's separation of troops also separated command and control. They were no better off than the Indians. They lost the ability to communicate ..result.... no command or control.
So, as I see it, it is not worth the effort for any of us to argue about technical mumbo jumbo. One side had officers...the other side had chiefs....Both had responsibilities ....Both used different methods to have followers.
nuff on this subject. Either way works for me. Rosebud
The US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms[3] defines Command and control as "[t]he exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander over assigned and attached forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Command and control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel, equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures employed by a commander in planning, directing, coordinating, and controlling forces and operations in the accomplishment of the mission. Also called C2."[4] Commanding officers are assisted in executing these tasks by specialized staff officers and enlisted personnel. These military staff are a group of officers and enlisted personnel that provides a bi-directional flow of information between a commanding officer and subordinate military units
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 1, 2012 3:49:19 GMT -6
Chuck & Richard, APC and Horse Mounted Squads are different in many ways (but they still get the same result, they get the men to their objective) so I will start with the APC Squad;
APC Commander and driver, were these men organic to the Platoon, or were they from a motor pool or its armoured equivalent. If they are not organic then it’s like the Horse Soldiers taking along three extra men per Squad (12 x man squad + 3 x horse holders) whose sole purpose is to hold the horses, but when not in the field these men would be stationed in a different unit.
Horse Mounted Squads; I don’t know who would be picked to do this job of holding the horses, if you have say three sets of fours per Squad and you designate one Trooper per set to hold four horses, then I would pick the Trooper who was the worst shot in the group, now going back to my Regiment in Williams Rock Drill, I hope my men can shoot better than the 7th did that day, other wise 75% of them would be horse holders and not the other way round with 24% horse holders and 75% Rifle men.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 1, 2012 4:24:45 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by wild on Sept 1, 2012 5:23:53 GMT -6
Richard: May I call to your attention pages 213-217 of 1862 Cavalry Tactics by COL Philip St, George Cooke, 2nd Dragoons (later Major General USA). Not the current manual in 1876, but close enough for you to get the general idea. Cathal I'm using Nolan's [him of the Light Brigade].Also have the US artillery field tactics for the same period. Have no idea how I would get my hands on Cooke's opus. Regards
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 1, 2012 7:35:19 GMT -6
Chuck & Richard, APC and Horse Mounted Squads are different in many ways (but they still get the same result, they get the men to their objective) so I will start with the APC Squad; APC Commander and driver, were these men organic to the Platoon, or were they from a motor pool or its armoured equivalent. If they are not organic then it’s like the Horse Soldiers taking along three extra men per Squad (12 x man squad + 3 x horse holders) whose sole purpose is to hold the horses, but when not in the field these men would be stationed in a different unit. Horse Mounted Squads; I don’t know who would be picked to do this job of holding the horses, if you have say three sets of fours per Squad and you designate one Trooper per set to hold four horses, then I would pick the Trooper who was the worst shot in the group, now going back to my Regiment in Williams Rock Drill, I hope my men can shoot better than the 7th did that day, other wise 75% of them would be horse holders and not the other way round with 24% horse holders and 75% Rifle men. Ian. Ian, typically it was the eldest of the group of four that held the horses. I know it goes against all convention of thought and reason, but that's the way it was.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2012 8:15:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2012 8:28:47 GMT -6
Rosebud: Read the definition in the Dictionary of Terms again.
Command and control and the means of command and control have evolved over the centuries. All commanders at all times have exercised control by various means of communication, and by the internal organization of their forces. Do you not think that had Custer stayed in the valley with the entire regiment he could have exercised command and control?. He would not be sitting there with a radio in his ear but he would have found a way.
The further the distance units are seperated makes that exercise of C&C more difficult in the age of no electronic communication. I would suspect that somewhere within the equipment of the 7th Cavalry there were several sets of signaling devices, maybe a couple of types, flags, mirrors and the like.
Sometimes some of you guys remind me of my teenage grandaughters, in that when they have a math problem, they reach for the pocket calculator. I say to them - no figure it out without the instant answer. They look at me as if to say you old buzzard, that's not how we do it here in the 21st century. They are of course right. That's not how we do it. Regardless it can be done other ways. Those other ways have become so foreign to us we forget they exist or existed. Commanders, unlike my grandchildren find a way to get things done, or they don't remain commanders very long.
Now take Dan for instance. Today he will be signaling his advancing age by means of candle signals mounted atop a piece of sweet confection that is no damned good for his heart health or his bulging wasteline. He should be ashamed at using this ancient method of signaling. He will take out his texting device, the one which he will receive birthday wishes all the live long day, and say to himself why has that old buzzard Quincannon not sent me a greeting on my nativity day. To which I say, Dan I am standing on top of my damned roof with my signal flags, flapping away as hard as I can, and it's not my damned fault you can't read HAPPY BIRTHDAY in semaphore. You probably can't read Greek or Latin either but that's another subject.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 1, 2012 8:42:36 GMT -6
We are arguing nothing but terminology.
The wife just got back from San Antonio last night and for some reason she has assumed command and control. Hell I didn't know she even knew how to play the game. WRONG
Got to go I have missions to accomplish.
A quick one before I leave.......Wounded Leg tells about being sent to watch the soldiers on Reno hill . That qualifies as C&C.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2012 9:00:17 GMT -6
Wounded Leg was willingly following the direction of the trusted respected leader who asked him to go. Similar, but not the same. When Wounded Leg says in his narative so in so ordered me to watch the soldiers on Reno Hill, then its the same.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Sept 1, 2012 9:08:32 GMT -6
Chuck, if Custer had kept his Regiment together (well minus Capt. Benteen Battalion and the Pack Train) he certainly could keep in contact with all the relevant wings, Battalions and Companies. Keeping a force of eight Companies over an area the size of where Reno fought his valley fight could be done, in his HQ Custer could have used Trumpeter Martini or one of the two orderly’s under his command as couriers, Reno had McLlhargey and Mitchell to act the same, so communication over a relatively small area could be done successfully.
Remember as well, your orders only have to get to Reno HQ, Reno would pass down the orders to his subordinates, the same applies to Keogh and Yates, one courier, one trip, deliver orders, and return, the big problem we have concerning the battle its self was that Custer, Reno, Benteen and the pack train were nowhere near each other never mind in sight of each other, if you disperse you units over such a wide area with hills between each one is in my mind ‘’a disaster waiting to happen’’.
Richard, from an industrious Hooker to a strong running flanker you are welcome.
Thanks Jag, that is something I didn’t know, I will keep it in mind.
Justin, a woman can control their family as easy as I can use the TV remote control, she can also make sure her commands are heard loud and clear, that’s why I have a garden shed.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2012 9:27:20 GMT -6
Ian: I of course never was confronted with this type of problem. In my youth I used the PRC6 and 10, later the PRC 25 and 77, and still later much more powerful and sophisticated radios, along with sound powered and conventional field telephones.
Today it is so much more advanced. What I would theorize though is that when it was anticipated forces would be spread out over longer distances (a distance where a messenger would either take to long or survival prolematic), the seperated subunit commander would be given more detail in the execution of a desired order or series of orders thereby the better to govern that sub-unit commander's actions.
Even to this day we still use runners to carry messages. We still have a means of back up. We sure as hell don't say the batteries or dead, I won't try to communicate until I can get new batteries. We find a way.
We overcome these things. We improvise. ------ Custer says to Reno - Marcus when you see me at 3411, and I turn around, drop my drawers (knickers to you folks who follow the Queen) and moon you, that is your signal to run like hell. Do you understand Marcus. Now on the other hand if you see me raise my right hand and give you the single finger salute, you must stay in the timber and die like a man. Here Marcus, take my flask, containing my private stock. You may need it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 1, 2012 10:11:38 GMT -6
Richard: There is a quaint little notion called the chain of commmand. To use the two examples you cite.
Gettysburg: Was it Lee? Was it? Lee issued orders to Longstreet. Longstreet issued orders to Pickett, and the two other division commanders. Pickett issued orders to Armistead, Kemper, and Garnett. They in turn issued orders to their regimental commanders and so on down. To lay the blame on Lee therefore is like laying the blame on you for world hunger because you dined well last night. Now I won't argue the wisdom of the attack with you. That is another matter all together.
Same thing at Waterloo. Ney was told where to go and what to do. He was the one who lost control. So lay blame where blame belongs. It is not the job of army commanders to command army corps. It is the job of the corps commander. Army commanders issue orders to corps commanders, and let them do their jobs. If they don't do them well, then they are relieved and you find someone else to do it.
No one every said armies with established command and control systems don't make mistakes or lose control of situations. You are blaming a system for the failure of an individual within that system. It must be wonderful to see the world in black and white. It must be wonderful to think all things work the correct way all the time. I sometimes wonder if you apply the same degree of common sense to these matters, where you sometimes live in Fairy Tale Land, as you do to the every day business you conduct in your personal life. Military operations, systems, weapons and equipment are only as good as the people who operate them. Regardless of if that system is the indians methods, or it is the much more sophisticated command and control relationships we have today, it is the people within the system that matter, their strong points, their weak points and so forth. Just because you can cherry pick the points that you think support your unsupportable position, you conclude there was no system. That is simple bovine waste.
Now Richard, I want you to give a good long time to answer this, and I expect from you a well reasoned response and not more cherry picked horse crap. If all systems of command and control, and all the people that operate them were perfect then no one on either side would ever lose a battle would they? You barking up the wrong tree.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Sept 1, 2012 11:10:00 GMT -6
Now take Dan for instance. Today he will be signaling his advancing age by means of candle signals mounted atop a piece of sweet confection that is no damned good for his heart health or his bulging wasteline. He should be ashamed at using this ancient method of signaling. He will take out his texting device, the one which he will receive birthday wishes all the live long day, and say to himself why has that old buzzard Quincannon not sent me a greeting on my nativity day. To which I say, Dan I am standing on top of my damned roof with my signal flags, flapping away as hard as I can, and it's not my damned fault you can't read HAPPY BIRTHDAY in semaphore. You probably can't read Greek or Latin either but that's another subject. Colonel, I dont have a text message thing or an I-Pad, or a cell phone.My only concession to modern technology is this computer, which I need help from the forum members to use from time to time. So you see sir, I read your signal flags loud and clear and thank you my friend. As to language I have now officially reached the age (Medicare) where this is now my motto "Carpe Diem, Quam Minimum Credula Postero" Be Well Dan
|
|