|
Post by montrose on Jan 12, 2015 9:39:27 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. I had written appoint paper an Indian C2 a few years ago, but I can't find it. Buried on some lost thread. But this thread is good enough to start. Just a reminder, my master's thesis was about nation state and unconventional organizations differing command and control. I had posted that here before, too. But I am going to try to keep this simple. SO let's start with a theory. By definition, the Indians had a command and control system. It was not very good and it was completely ineffective in waging war with the US. The Indian C2 was a committee approach. Imagine if they had power point, staff briefings from hell. Now we say US had a better command and control system. Better means it is more efficient and more effective allowing better decision making and use of the correlation of forces and means. But I say the use command and control system was weaker than Indians at LBH. An incompetent commander destroyed all US advantages. LTC Custer died with a single company of his regiment. So who commanded the other 11? Where are the control measures? The 7th were a cluster puck at LBH. Darkcloud has said LBH is a story of a bad organization beating one even worse. There is much truth in this. Can we keep the ranting and raving off this thread? Every effort I have been making to start a distraction is getting sidetracked. Respectfully, WIlliam
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2015 10:12:31 GMT -6
I think it is a fundamental truth that we here in a latter day consider primitive as being less. The truth is that is not so, primitive is primitive, but a primitive system that works is far better than a sophisticated system that for one reason or another does not.
The U S Army system of command and control is based upon echeloned structure. When for any reason that structure is subverted, command and control breaks down to a greater or lesser degree. Custer reduced to the role of company commander is one such example.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 12, 2015 10:16:07 GMT -6
That cannot even be allowed to pass uncontested. No Indian had the ability to order/command anything in battle. They could tell whoever tried to get bent. I fully realize there is all sorts of peer pressure, but if someone heard their lodge with the family needed them, so long and might or might not be back. What defined plains Indians (and also made their lifestyle so attractive to young white men for centuries) was this rejection of command authority and, you know, visible freedom. Indian LBH accounts often reference odd groups puttering into camp, puttering out, some went hunting, some slept all day. Looking at the definition, where do Indians meet any of the criteria? They had NO units beyond the ad hoc. They had no record keeping, they had no pyramid structure of command or even authority. Military guys feel compelled to assign aspects of Indian life to the jargon laden structure of our army, and it really does not work. This recently led to a military vet on this board insisting that the warrior societies were the Sioux's Seal Team Six composed of superior fighters with special skills. They were social clubs, fraternities. But it took a while for that to sink in.
Which is why the insistence of discussing the LBH as a strictly military endeavor using military terms and jargon applied to both sides is problematic. Even the 7th did not follow military dictate in its years with Custer. It was unprofessional in that officers could bring all sorts of crap: their own weapons (with their own ammo), their own clothing, and a frigging stove and cook. The 7th was ripe with nepotism, and again recall that Pat Tillman's brother Kevin was disarmed when they told him his brother was dead. That's today's army. Not hard to visualize what power family had within the 7th. Allowing that isn't professional. Never mind the training with weapons and generally mediocre horsemanship.
They could not even guarantee their cavalrymen horses even after marching them on foot (in cavalry boots)for hundreds of miles. Custer did not explain his plan, if any, he did not inform anyone of a Plan B. He divided his regiment again and again in the face of the enemy. Many men and officers were not physically fit. Custer was convicted at court martial because his story was not believed (he lied), yet far from being cashiered or imprisoned for murder, he was kept and returned to command. That is whose definition of professional?
It may well reassure military vets to utilize the jargon and try to retrofit current concepts back, but it is, for the most part, not valid and it certainly does not aid history.
And what was claimed is that the least incompetent side won that day. Is all.
The Indians didn't have tons of ammo for the Winchesters. Further, I find it unlikely that a group armed with those weapons operated in one place to produce Henryville. Further yet, Indians likely wedged incorrect ammo in those rifles as some artifacts suggest and they served as single shot weapons. But more likely an event not related to the battle presents as Henryville.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 12, 2015 10:36:31 GMT -6
The US Cavalry used a system that would have been standard practice for cavalry regiments worldwide, colour coding horses to different companies plus each company carrying a Guidon would allow the regimental commander to keep order and control, he could in most cases see who was where on the field, of course Custer would have had this system too, but it seems like he lost the control his regiment by dispersal, he left it piecemeal in the hands of Maj. Reno and Captains Benteen, MacDougal and Keogh, leaving him with the smallest unit on the field under Captain Yates, and with such a small battalion (around 80 all ranks) he got bullied over the field by larger bands who controlled the area through sheer numbers, and that would be why he died with rough fifty of his men.
The Sioux like any tribe would fight in bands, and these would be led by men (chiefs) who they could recognise on the field, similar to a Guidon I suppose, could these bands from various tribes work together? Well using the LBH as an example no, because they were to my mind anyway, caught in the hop, what I mean by that is, they just grabbed any weapons and ponies and went to the sound of the guns, on the other hand though I could see how they reacted to Custer coming from a different direction, hundreds could still have been in the village, but with Reno being the first on the scene he became prime concern he got dealt with first, and Custer would have been dealt with along the same lines as Reno, as many still left in the camp would have eventually reacted to his presence, giving those redundant after Reno was forced back, too again gather for the next fight and these must have knew of Custer or else they would have stayed in the valley.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 12, 2015 10:43:15 GMT -6
BT/DC I have no clue what ammunition at Henryville, Custer's Courts Martial, or lack of horses had to do with command and control. The premise you state in your paragraph is basically correct, however even there you attempt to slide in opinion. The fact remains on June 25, 1876 the NA communicated better than the US Army, and they commanded the field, along with controlling the situation. The Seal thing must have been before I came on board.
Again, aside from some the above your basic premise is essentially correct. You could have been more direct though in getting to your point.
Regards, Tom
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 11:00:30 GMT -6
That cannot even be allowed to pass uncontested. No Indian had the ability to order/command anything in battle. They could tell whoever tried to get bent. I fully realize there is all sorts of peer pressure, but if someone heard their lodge with the family needed them, so long and might or might not be back. What defined plains Indians (and also made their lifestyle so attractive to young white men for centuries) was this rejection of command authority and, you know, visible freedom. Indian LBH accounts often reference odd groups puttering into camp, puttering out, some went hunting, some slept all day. Looking at the definition, where do Indians meet any of the criteria? They had NO units beyond the ad hoc. They had no record keeping, they had no pyramid structure of command or even authority. Military guys feel compelled to assign aspects of Indian life to the jargon laden structure of our army, and it really does not work. This recently led to a military vet on this board insisting that the warrior societies were the Sioux's Seal Team Six composed of superior fighters with special skills. They were social clubs, fraternities. But it took a while for that to sink in. Which is why the insistence of discussing the LBH as a strictly military endeavor using military terms and jargon applied to both sides is problematic. Even the 7th did not follow military dictate in its years with Custer. It was unprofessional in that officers could bring all sorts of crap: their own weapons (with their own ammo), their own clothing, and a frigging stove and cook. The 7th was ripe with nepotism, and again recall that Pat Tillman's brother Kevin was disarmed when they told him his brother was dead. That's today's army. Not hard to visualize what power family had within the 7th. Allowing that isn't professional. Never mind the training with weapons and generally mediocre horsemanship. They could not even guarantee their cavalrymen horses even after marching them on foot (in cavalry boots)for hundreds of miles. Custer did not explain his plan, if any, he did not inform anyone of a Plan B. He divided his regiment again and again in the face of the enemy. Many men and officers were not physically fit. Custer was convicted at court martial because his story was not believed (he lied), yet far from being cashiered or imprisoned for murder, he was kept and returned to command. That is whose definition of professional? It may well reassure military vets to utilize the jargon and try to retrofit current concepts back, but it is, for the most part, not valid and it certainly does not aid history. And what was claimed is that the least incompetent side won that day. Is all. The Indians didn't have tons of ammo for the Winchesters. Further, I find it unlikely that a group armed with those weapons operated in one place to produce Henryville. Further yet, Indians likely wedged incorrect ammo in those rifles as some artifacts suggest and they served as single shot weapons. But more likely an event not related to the battle presents as Henryville. Good post. To suggest the NA operated inside a defined military command and control system is ludicrous.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 12, 2015 11:40:23 GMT -6
No, Tubman, hyperbole aside, I was referencing you. That's a good example of the pull of jargon to military minds. The worst was the concept of a sole 'chief', of course, many centuries back. And the fact that they won is not glowing testament to superior communications, or any for that matter. There was NO command and control in any way comparable to the army. A mob saw and a mob acted.
Again, I recommend Gordon's The Rules of the Game, primarily concerned with the Royal Navy's many problems fighting the Great War after a century of relative peace. They, too, got caught up in jargon and the new department of flags and signals was not under control and if radio hadn't improved so much so quick, it would have been a bigger problem between the wars. Even so, he has testimony from RN officers about the incredible and pointless crap that fills the airwaves during war because they had the ability so use it. He discusses how military and naval officers advance in such times, and how 'virtual empiricism' actually became a thing mistaken for experience and fact in training and planning. Field officers were being TOLD how the next war would be fought by those who had no actual clue but had rank and peacetime sea service.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2015 12:36:56 GMT -6
"The least incompetent won the day, that's all" So what you are really saying is that the more competent of the two, as demonstrated by overall performance won the day.
Was it the least incompetent that won the day, yesterday in Denver, or Saturday in Massachusetts, or was it the more competent of the two?
Was it a case of two incompetents on any given day, or was it a case of two with different areas of competence on any given day?
Of all these versions I think it was this last - Two with differing areas of competence on any given day - and the area of competence that was most appropriate to the situation at hand won the day.
I believe I am qualified to speak on incompetence. I am a Redskin fan. By any scale of measurement one cares to use the Dallas Cowboys were a far more competent team than the Washington Redskins. Yet the Redskins beat them this year not once but twice. In battle, levels of competence and incompetence do matter, but the deciding factor is always the side who finds a way to win first. That is the only thing that matters. Analysts may look into the nuts and bolts of what happened and did not happen, but the only thing that matters is the highest number on the scoreboard when the game concludes. The more sophisticated of the two approaches to the game matter little in the losers locker room. A loss is a loss, and the smart losers find out what happened and why it happens and adjust so its chances of happening again are lessened.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jan 12, 2015 14:41:05 GMT -6
QC, you said the Redskins won twice against the Cowboys this year. Did they play in preseason? First meeting in October, Washington 20, Dallas 17. Second meeting in December, Dallas 44, Washington 17. I think we split with the skins this year. Other than that, your points about competence are right on. P.S. I am a Cowboys fan (naturally, living in the Dallas area).
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2015 15:26:09 GMT -6
We don't get many of their games here, and I was fairly sure that I had seen a 9-6 score for that December game. I stand corrected, for you are certainly in a position to know more than I.
Everyone in my family in Texas are Cowboys fans. I knew I did not raise that girl right.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jan 12, 2015 15:52:27 GMT -6
No problem. We both have a common problem. You have Snider, we have Jones.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2015 16:02:03 GMT -6
Yes, and both are right in line with this thread, incompetent leadership, and command and control.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 12, 2015 16:03:34 GMT -6
Have the Redskins won anything, since Snyder bought them...?
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Jan 12, 2015 16:41:47 GMT -6
Yes, and both are right in line with this thread, incompetent leadership, and command and control. EXACTLY!!!
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 12, 2015 16:49:25 GMT -6
Snider in the area of command and control is much the same as George Custer. He does not realize that having command, means that you direct the actions of your subordinates and not interfere with what they have to do. There is a fine line between direction and interference that should not be crossed under normal circumstance.
A weak backing into the playoffs once, several years ago.
One other thing that is similar Snider goes for flash, and fancy, where his contemporaries go for nuts and bolts football.
Trying to keep this on Will's track here. It is very easy to find fault with the execution of the command and control system of the U S Army as Custer applied it. It was fairly standard for its day, based upon an echeloned organization. It is easy because we see these same faults manifested today, by all sort of organization.
It is much harder, at least for me to get a handle on Indian command and control. There must have been some at some level, for they could not go about their daily lives without some central direction, Who decides when and where to move the village for instance? There must have been some level of leadership in hunting parties and war parties as well. I really want to see what Will has to say on the matter as his thesis covered it. Jutland and battle cruisers can wait.
|
|