|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 25, 2014 15:24:47 GMT -6
<Use your best judgment when and if you assume command>
Famous words to Custer from Terry . . . Terry was shrewd . . . give Custer enough rope and if he hangs himself it's his fault. Terry realized Custer was a fighter but couldn't juggle balls worth a damn.
All in all it looks like Custer was given the opportunity to have one the greatest and probably last great victory over Hostile Indians on the North American continent and he came up short.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 25, 2014 15:39:43 GMT -6
Still think Terry's summation of the battle yet to be surpassed. Previously posted.
Again: is it necessary that everything that happens on small unit operations in the west have a formal name?
Suppose Benteen's orders had been: "Take three companies to the south west from here, sending a small group ahead to preclude being surprised in what looks to be bad ground. If there are Indians there drive them out before you, and notify me. If nothing is between you and the LBH, return to the command. Oh, and if you see a Placeholder For Point plant in flower,as they may be at this time, grab enough to give the docs to make pain herb medicine which we may need." Would we now be debating whether it was a Rec in Force, an Attack at Leisure, or an Armed Foray for Medicinal Obtainment/Recon in Less Force? Can't an officer in the field send a guy or unit to do stuff for which no known title exists, it isn't important that it does not exist as the mission was understood, and trying to find out what the commander's 'plan' or 'mindset' was wedging it into templates might be kinda silly?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 25, 2014 15:40:25 GMT -6
Yes Horse, my wife tells me that horseshit is good for her roses too, and as long as I am around she has a plentiful supply.
While I am baring my soul this afternoon with the things that as an officer drove me up the wall I will mention three more:
1)Wearing headgear indoors when not required for duty 2) Having the fly on your trousers unbuttoned/unzipped and 3) Having your pockets unbuttoned
Now at a casual look these three things don't represent courts martial material, but they are an indicator of poor training, and deserving of a rocket up the ass of the offender. They are indicators of lack of attention to detail, and poor to non-existent situational awareness. Both are deadly, and we see just how deadly both are in the battle we all study here.
Yes DC it is necessary that each action or reaction have a formal clearly defined name, understood by all. I don't care if it is in the American West or in Western Slobovia. How else are we to communicate, and make our communications understood if there is not a common vocabulary. When I say go and do such and such I don't have or wish to take the time for a detailed explanation. The person I am ordering or receiving orders from have a common standard of training and a common detailed vocabulary.
If I tell you to ride point I expect you to ride point and not stick a pencil up your ass.
While you are busy explaining all this horsecock, sending three companies and picking daisies and all, you are wasting bloody time and time is a precious on the battlefield. How about---- Benteen take your battalion, Conduct an armed reconnaissance of that area. Go no further than. He will know what to do and how to do it by virtue of standardized training. Then you let him get about his business. And no it would not be being debated, because the words describing the mission would be clearly defined and understood by all. We don't do all that flowery Victorian Era horse crap anymore, and it is for the very reason you state. Gettysburg was lost because some idiot (Robert E. Lee) said ---General Ewell If you find it practicable blah, blah, bah. He should have said ---- General Ewell assault that goddamned hill and knock those people off of it.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 25, 2014 15:50:21 GMT -6
Unfortunately the military and/or government loves to have all kinds of records (names of everything, too) to prove or disprove something. And yes it gets to be pedantic (Oh Fred!) and it all came to fruition at the RCOI. If anyone has read a government bill to be voted on you can understand that reasoning but never understand the bill because of its wordiness. Maybe that's the whole point . . . make it so confusing you throw up your hands and just vote for the damn thing!
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 25, 2014 16:03:26 GMT -6
QC, I agree so far as it goes, but it is not possible to have a name for every combination of tasks that may be required on an ad hoc level, is it? So, if the mission requirements don't fit under a an order sequence you don't do it? That being the case what would the fake example I offered be called? And why?
All this time and energy about advance guard or recon in force, but if what they were told to do doesn't exactly fit, so what? The mission is understood. The advance to Weir and back, sometimes called a fiasco or worse, resulted in one death and few wounded if any, and it wasn't a strictly by the book anything. I understand the need to slap it into shape before the brass, but did the 7th itself actually argue the merits of maneuver title? Did they care?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 25, 2014 16:28:48 GMT -6
DC: Well it is because of battles like LBH, and such fiascos as you point to that we have over time standardized the various types of tactical actions and gone to great efforts to make them fully and completely understood throughout the force. This is not nice to have but rather a necessity. Our field of endeavor requires the same standard rules as your playing the banjo does. If you are told to play such and such a chord you know exactly what is meant, Same with us.
If a mission, such as Benteen's armed reconnaissance requires any further special instructions over the standard tactical method, he would be given it in the form of coordinating instructions along with the order. That is to be expected and the absence of these instructions is rare.
What me saying to you by telling you that you and your battalion are the advanced guard, is putting you in an trained, agreed upon, and clearly defined frame of reference. In other words it is not necessary to spell out to you in detail what the duties of advanced guard are. You already know that. It is only necessary to tell you to go thataway.
So lets say that Reno is told you have the advance. No it does not look, smell or act like an advanced guard because it was not an advanced guard. It might have been something else but it was not an advanced guard. No advanced guard was called for in that situation NONE. ZERO, NADA. What was called for was a base upon which the main body could join with and further maneuver. You have the advance. What in the hell does that mean. It can be interpreted three different ways, four if you wear a costume, and none fully fit, therefore the debate and the misunderstanding. Reno himself received the order and he did not comprehend the intention. So if he did not understand what was meant, then is it any wonder we debate this here?
The advance to Weir Point defies logical description. It was the action of a piss poorly trained rump regiment of cavalry, half of which just got the snot kicked out of it led by substandard (Benteen the exception) officers who didn't have a clue what was required of them or how to do it. That is unless you find a paragraph in the appropriate field manual that includes field trains and aid station in the attack. It was a godawful mess that defies any further comment because there are no printable words in English sufficient.
This may sound strange to you and probably others but Benteen showed more leadership by laying down in an exposed position and taking a nap then anything he could have done. Houston did something similar at San Jacinto. He was saying to his men, calm down, everything is under control. We will work our way out of this. Not conventional I admit but very effective, and also easily misunderstood by those unfamiliar with either him or the leadership technique in general.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Mar 25, 2014 16:55:18 GMT -6
But Reno and Benteen were not given such descriptive orders. Nor was Custer. And, yeah, I've mentioned Benteen's command presence and not doing stuff - like arguing with Reno or Weir early on or in front of the men - and bringing everything back under the tent as a unit under Reno. Doesn't sound strange. And if the soldiers and officers haven't been trained in what the specific orders mean in integrated training with each other, why utilize orders in those terms?
We can argue all we want, but it doesn't seem the 7th guys did. They understood all up to the point Custer didn't support whatsoever Reno's ordered offensive. Benteen's recon/scout/whatever only took on title importance because of the disaster to Custer. Don't think he referenced it as something beyond variations of waste of time and effort. Were they thinking in the terms we debate as if they did?
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Mar 25, 2014 17:08:48 GMT -6
but did the 7th itself actually argue the merits of maneuver title? Did they care? Not after 5:00 PM, and not because it was Happy Hour!
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 25, 2014 17:19:33 GMT -6
What does support mean? ?? It means different things, using different methods dependent upon what is being supported. See what I mean? Armies DC are evolutionary, and never as some claim revolutionary. They change by virtue of experience, and that experience usually translates into painful lessons learned, such as we have here. They are also, and the men within them products of their time. These men in their own minds were the embodiment of a Walter Scott hero. An Ivanhoe or at least a Brian Bois de Gilbert (depending on the flavor of your heroes) They did flowery things in flowery ways, for that was befitting their image of themselves. None would be the raggedy ass Marine of Obong-ni Ridge. They were men whose ego trumped logic. Weir is a sterling example. They had no standard of conduct thus most were drunks, most in bad health, most overage in grade, and all uniformly poor in execution , with some exceptions. They were products of a system that required either axe murder or death, to keep you from promotion at that slow but appointed time. There were products of no uniform evaluation system that had the ability to say you are a drunk, a coward, a piss poor performer - get the hell out. They were not in an army nor had it been an army since 1865 nor would it be again until 1917. Most of all they were in an army with no advanced education and in some cases none at all. What was Miles before the civil war. What was Terry. Maybe good guys who picked up experience along the way but hardly well educated, well trained soldiers, who rose because those before them died. We have always had the notion in this country that the talented amateur was sufficient. We have always been fond of bullshit too. Time goes on an armies either improve or the countries they serve die.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 25, 2014 17:23:09 GMT -6
... is it necessary that everything that happens on small unit operations in the west have a formal name? Can't an officer in the field send a guy or unit to do stuff for which no known title exists, it isn't important that it does not exist as the mission was understood, and trying to find out what the commander's 'plan' or 'mindset' was wedging it into templates might be kinda silly? Actually-- and funny, too-- this is a very shrewd observation. I seem to remember we did away with the formal terminology once we had our mission assignment: "reconnaissance in force," "combat patrol," etc. As it always seemed to turn out-- like QC alluded to earlier-- once engaged, all bets were off. On patrol, unless we had strict orders not to fire-- HAH!-- it was, kill the suckers! Terminology only muddies the waters; we all knew what the terms meant and we let it at that. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 25, 2014 17:41:28 GMT -6
Yes Fred you are correct. You get an assignment and you do it. You get out there and mix it up and the only ones that care about the formal name of that mission is the commander that gave it to you to put you on the right track, and the historian who reviews the reports AFTERWARDS in order to write the official history. Getting shot over in an advanced guard is quite similar to getting shot over in a combat patrol, or coordinated attack or while sitting on the thrown in the latrine. It scares the hell out of you and you shoot back. Then you Charlie Mike, be it advance guarding, combat patrolling, attack coordinating, or taking a crap
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 25, 2014 17:45:21 GMT -6
Benteen's recon/scout/whatever only took on title importance because of the disaster to Custer. I disagree with you here. It only took on "title importance" when Conz made an issue of it. Before that it was WhoGAS. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 25, 2014 17:47:18 GMT -6
Getting shot over in an advanced guard is quite similar to getting shot over in a combat patrol, or coordinated attack or while sitting on the thrown in the latrine. It scares the hell out of you and you shoot back. <g>Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 25, 2014 17:51:29 GMT -6
The Benteen movement whatever I chose to call it, or whatever DC, or those that did it call it, was important in and of itself and had nothing to do with Goldilocks. That only happens in the minds of a latter day Ivanhoe, who himself should have been thrown in the goddamed lake for that lady to catch instead of a perfectly good sword. Mixing my Scott there but who the hell cares.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Mar 26, 2014 5:12:01 GMT -6
I see you guys have been enjoying yourselves.
I suppose you can call what you want, advance guard, recon in force or combat patrol, all the terms are relevant, and certain types of orders need some kind of name so that officers can issue them without explaining the rigmarole every time, similar to a football player getting told by his coach that he is playing on the wing today, he will know what is asked of him.
But at the end of the day, if you have a Battalion of over a hundred men at your disposal, you should be able to scout, attack, and defend, because in 1876 you are the best any country could offer in the way of mobility and firepower.
Ian.
|
|