|
Post by rosebud on Sept 2, 2012 15:07:02 GMT -6
Nothing like that within the tribes. If there were, there would have been organized scouts and the 7Th would never have gotten near the village
Oh my, my. How misinformed you are......Try explaining smoke signals. That is form of two way communication. The Indians were able to communicate to the warriors near Reno that help was needed at the other end of the village. Without smoke signals I might add before some idiot tries to twist that statement around.. The proof is there . OPEN your eyes.
Another example........Huston command and control center.Nothing to do with war, only organization....Top of the line at that time. Far superior to what the 7Th was using.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 2, 2012 15:14:21 GMT -6
Jag, I have no source, or manual to quote from, but my opinion which can certainly be disputed is that command and control equals authority. It is absolute. You cant have a little authority over your forces, you either have it or you dont An example would be when Custer sent Benteen off to scout. Benteen said "General dont you think we should keep the regiment together" Custers reply "Colonel you have your orders" That is command, It is absolute authority Be Well Dan Dan, You mean to tell everyone in the whole world that there just isn't such a thing as varying degrees of command and control? Come on Dan, you, Q, Fred and every other person from the most meager of experiences on up the chain of command knows better than that.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 2, 2012 15:20:46 GMT -6
My goodness this does have a life of it's own. Montrose and I disagree, and both of us were from the same background, different branches but essentially the same overall structure. I don't know who said it above. I am to lazy to look back. It was here or the other thread. I think though given Montrose and I cannot completely agree, Fred is to damned smart to get involved in this fracus, Dan went to Mass this morning and is still in the effects of the afterglow of what I am sure was a good sermon, we should all give some consideration to the following. I also went to Mass and the topic was doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. In the spirt of that in depth look at my immortal soul, let me suggest that to all here the term Command and Control has differing meanings based upon our own view and experience. Thus I think those views should stand, each to his own. Next week we'er going to discuss the Ten Suggestions given to Moses. I shall post back on this topic then and if you guys have not calmed down I may in fact shatter the tablet that contain the Ten Suggestions of your collective heads. Q, from what I've seen the discussion has been civil, respectful and as someone, I'm to lazy to look back, said, to paraphrase, - its a good discussion - . Normally when the bullets fly and the first punch is thrown I would agree, to each his own and leave well enough alone. Until that happens, I think this should be discussed, after all it was you who suggested that - "some"one - do it, "only on a different thread". Well I did, and now you're saying don't?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 2, 2012 15:29:41 GMT -6
Agreed. If you took any other meaning that was not my intent.
In the end though my definition, and everything I have said here and the other thread, agrees with what DC posted above taken from the Dictonary of Military Terms. That is how I understand it. It will remain so. So if you or others wish to point to football teams, ladies aide societies, native tribal cultures, or anything else to prove the point to me it is in vain. Likewise, you may read my understanding of what it is, and know that I will not impose that definition on you., at least no longer. But don't try then to impose yours on me.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Sept 2, 2012 15:58:34 GMT -6
Dan, You mean to tell everyone in the whole world that there just isn't such a thing as varying degrees of command and control? Come on Dan, you, Q, Fred and every other person from the most meager of experiences on up the chain of command knows better than that. Jag, I understand that most things in life are not absolute but have varying degrees, but I just dont think this is one of them. I honestly tried to come up with an example in my mind that would constitute partial command authority of a commander, and I couldnt come up with any. But if you or in fact anyone could give me an example of partial command authority,I will not nor have I ever been agitated or troubled at being corrected. I look at it as gaining knowledge which is always a good thing. Perhaps I can better understand your point of view. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by bc on Sept 2, 2012 16:00:49 GMT -6
Okay, from Wiki. Where is this wrong? "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.
The purpose of a military staff is mainly that of providing accurate, timely information which by category represents information on which command decisions are based. The key application is that of decisions that effectively manage unit resources. While information flow toward the commander is a priority, information that is useful or contingent in nature is communicated to lower staffs and units.Nothing like that within the tribes. If there were, there would have been organized scouts and the 7th would never have gotten near the village. Sounds about right to me. What I see from the NAs is that they are a bunch of individuals who pick their leaders because of mainly bravery although other things can enter in as well. NAs demonstrate bravery through their bravery runs and counting coup along with collecting scalps and so forth. That leaves the NAs with their present leaders such as CH and Gall who acquired their status from bravery runs in past battles, the chief wannabes who will go out on their own bravery runs, the many little NA followers who need to see someone else make a run before they get up their courage to follow, and finally the few/some who aren't going to fight for whatever reason such as age or disability. About all the NA accounts I read involve someone making a bravery run and others following both with the Reno skirmish lines and at the Custer battlefield. What they do is come at you with much of their body and vital parts hidden behind the horse and try to get as close or into a line to count coup on an individual soldier. Sometimes they get right through the line but usually the get close and then move to the other flank fo the line and then they circle in behind if they can. Which was exactly how Reno lost the valley fight and Custer lost his. It didn't take long for the NAs to begin to circle Reno as we know and the same happened to Custer and Fred's timing for NAs either walking or riding from ford B show it didn't take a great amount of time for them to move around the battlefield. On the 26th the NAs did try some bravery runs into the Reno Hill defense site but they had enough firepower to stop them. For the NAs on foot, Benteen had to charge them with soldiers to get them out of range, a standard army tactic with the most common example being Chamberlain's charge at Little Roundtop so the northern aggressors could get the state's righters out of their front and stop the formation of a new charge against them as will as stop continual sniping. bc
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 2, 2012 16:07:15 GMT -6
Quin....Once again we agree. Your understanding of C&C is because you are using the military definition...... Note that this is their definition of how C&C is to be understood by the military ....for the military....and should only be used to judge the military in question. It is not a blanket statement for others that use a different standard.
No one else falls under or is obligated to follow this definition. It was not intended for anyone but the military. Indians fall under a different standard and are not bound by your definition of C&C.
If you are talking about the military, then yes, by all means that is the only definition that can be used.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 2, 2012 16:21:38 GMT -6
Agreed again.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 2, 2012 16:41:17 GMT -6
I do find it humorous that the Army used Indians as a major tool for their command and control. Intel...Scouting comunications.....messangers.
Looks like we have ended the debate. At least its good enough for me.
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 2, 2012 16:44:42 GMT -6
Dan, You mean to tell everyone in the whole world that there just isn't such a thing as varying degrees of command and control? Come on Dan, you, Q, Fred and every other person from the most meager of experiences on up the chain of command knows better than that. Jag, I understand that most things in life are not absolute but have varying degrees, but I just dont think this is one of them. I honestly tried to come up with an example in my mind that would constitute partial command authority of a commander, and I couldnt come up with any. But if you or in fact anyone could give me an example of partial command authority,I will not nor have I ever been agitated or troubled at being corrected. I look at it as gaining knowledge which is always a good thing. Perhaps I can better understand your point of view. Be Well Dan www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a401397.pdf
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Sept 2, 2012 16:59:52 GMT -6
Agreed. If you took any other meaning that was not my intent. In the end though my definition, and everything I have said here and the other thread, agrees with what DC posted above taken from the Dictonary of Military Terms. That is how I understand it. It will remain so. So if you or others wish to point to football teams, ladies aide societies, native tribal cultures, or anything else to prove the point to me it is in vain. Likewise, you may read my understanding of what it is, and know that I will not impose that definition on you., at least no longer. But don't try then to impose yours on me. Q, It's just a discussion. (Period) I assure you I have no interest in "imposing" anything upon you or others. And I feel it has been a good discussion, nothing more, nothing less. If we all can find information here, that's what it was all about. And if we can find in that information something that sheds light upon the battle, each in his or her own way, I say more is the better.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Sept 2, 2012 17:33:10 GMT -6
Total agreement about all aspects of your post.
Rosebud: Not only indians. Indian is not the operative word. Local knowledge. Alamo Scouts did the same thing in the Philappines. Eight Army the same thing in Korea. And there are many other examples. Just makes sense.
Sidebar: If anyone wants to know just how good American infantry can be read up on the Alamo Scouts.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Sept 2, 2012 18:20:13 GMT -6
Looks like we have ended the debate. Good! I was about to chime in. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Sept 2, 2012 20:01:49 GMT -6
The offering of smoke signals as indication of command and control is pretty pathetic. Neither speed nor accuracy nor much chance of reception whatever, especially in mobile circumstance. Especially given nobody then or now has explained what the language of smoke was - it's just assumed there was one, I guess - and, since there were none seen at LBH, how is this relevant? It's a system demanding structure the tribes did not have or want to.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Sept 2, 2012 20:15:56 GMT -6
Nothing like that within the tribes. If there were, there would have been organized scouts and the 7Th would never have gotten near the village
No, DC.. yours was the one that was pathetic. If you look you would see that scouts watched Gibbon for over a month. Found and stopped Crook. Delayed Bradley.
You should be walking with a limp that was lame. Your example is shot down. End of conversation.
DC ban is again in effect Rosebud
|
|