Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 20:23:02 GMT -6
I guess I am somewhat in the middle when it comes to this debate. I expect the correct use of military terminology in relation to the US army, and I get irritated when I read errant nonsense like there was a "fix and flank", but I allow considerable leeway in relation to describing the hostiles actions in non-military terminology. But be under no illusions, there was a basic command and control within "decentralized tribal councils, tribes, sub tribes and families". Warriors deferring to a Gall or a Crazy Horse is C+C. Those two briefly conferring would be C+C. One doing something in reaction to the actions of the other is C+C. C+C does not equal the Prussian General staff or bust. Before I joined this message board I was viewing another board, "fix and flank" was all they were discussing, to the point where they were going round and round with no direction. While I know I hold no weight in the debate, too much military jargon can get in the way to where the real topic is being missed. Didn't join the other board because that's all they seemed to discussed. |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Jan 13, 2015 20:56:05 GMT -6
No, WO. You're not getting away with that. "Warrior's deferring to a Gall or a Crazy Horse is C + C." 'Command' is not a suggestion or a polite sublimation of opinion. It's orders that have to be obeyed or serious sanctions. Nobody had to obey CH and Gall was a creation of the white revisionists as a 'chief' because they tried to replace SB as their 'leader.' If the same conditions occurred on the army side, you'd have an aneurism if it was suggested that was, somehow, command and control. You don't get to apply the same terminology to two totally different things. That's garbage. Because your experience includes it, you apply it to the enemy. Virtual empiricism.
More important, you STILL don't get that everything the Indians valued in their way of life and culture was not compatible with command and control in combat. Their world was cyclical in time - not linear - their years, and their wars, zero sum with a clean start with the seasons. Ad hoc agreements for a specific battle procedure is NOT command and control but convenience for a common goal. They could leave any time to be with or save their own families. They could not provide logistics for a war, which would require specific jobs assigned and done, which had zero chance in a warrior culture. What control worthy of the same application to an Army unit did the Sioux exhibit?
Montrose, the virtual empiricism is not my term, but from Gordon's references to the training of the RN between Trafalgar and Jutland. They had a logical birth of a communication system upon which all else rested that had no real ability to be handy in battle. Pretend experience wrote the manuals and signal books. It became so powerful and ludicrously complicated and virus like Gordon lists all the current ramifications that remain today in both the US and UK navies.
|
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 14, 2015 1:01:40 GMT -6
DC,
If anybody had to make a total mess of grasping the concept of "command and control" on this thread, I guess it was somewhat inevitable that it would have to be you.
For you, everything has to be black or white and covered by a sweeping generalisation. Rigid US Army versus native society, so the rigid organisational terminology of the former has to be applied to the latter in every facet or it doesn't apply at all. It's not C2ISR or bust. Basic "command and control" has nothing whatsoever to do with Sitting Bull holding a post-battle court martial of Gall under 1876 US Army regulations if he ignores a request from Crazy Horse. It's not about rigid hierarchical structures enforceable by sanctions, although that is how major developed societies have chosen to structure their armed forces for somewhat obvious reasons.
All that "command and control" means, at its most basic and historic level, is the running of an armed force or other organization. And that's it. Forget field regulations/manuals. Forget the Pentagon. Forget NATO. It doesn't have to be anything remotely hierarchical. A tribal village, a family even, is an "organisation" and however informal....can we at least agree that GAC's regiment was on the receiving end of a certain degree of "force" on 25 June 1876?
And please don't get me started on the superficial nonsense you are starting to post about WW1 naval warfare. You need to progress beyond reliance upon 1 book, however decent it is, when it is limited (as Gordon readily admits) by its narrow central thesis and not written as an uncontroversial wider general overview. The voyage from Nelson at Trafalgar to Jellicoe at Jutland was an incredibly complex one, and can do without your superficial take on it. If you want to understand Jutland, start (from the British side) with the life of 12"-15" gun barrels and (from the German side) with the SMS Grosser Kurfürst humiliation within swimming distance of England and in full view of British seaside tourists. Your journey will lead you to where you want to be in relation to institutional conservatism and failure to best utilise rapidly evolving technology, but this way you will have the advantage of understanding how you got to your destination.
WO
|
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 14, 2015 5:13:40 GMT -6
There are times I do not even know where to start. 1. Empiricism is a theory which states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory experience, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions;[2] empiricists may argue however that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3] Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation. Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, asserts that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification."[4] One of the epistemological tenets is that sensory experience creates knowledge. The scientific method, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides empirical research. 2.The search for truth starts with how do we know, what we know. Using terminology and military concepts to frame a discussion of battle is the way to do business. I guess we could use dance terminology. Reno did a pas de deux in the valley, Sitting Bull a flamenco. What I do not understand is that Fred and DC have been proponents of definitions and common framework for study for years. 3. Here is a example of how military terminology and concepts assist in the study of battle. The Army uses the term OCOKA for terrain analysis. Observation and Fields of Fire Cover and Concealment Obstacles (man made and natural) Key or Decisive Terrain Avenues of Approach www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/survival/ocoka.shtml The link is to an Army study guide, for specialists trying to make sergeant. We teach OCOKA in basic training and we use it from private to general. If you want to discuss terrain in an engagement, please show me a better framework. As a person who isn' exactly up to speed with military terms I must say I don't mind seeing them used as long as you guys don't mind me slowing down the conversation to ask for explaination. One point that I don't agree with that is often said (But I don't recall on which board) is the view that you can only look at LBH as a military action. I feel that things like personalities do come into effect especially when you consider the sources of information being used. For example when you discuss Benteen and Kanipe, which account you consider more correct rides a great deal on who you think is more creditable. Beth Beth, no problem slowing down to ask question, I think you could send a pm for even greater clarification. I don't consider myself on top of everything posted.
Regards Tom
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 14, 2015 5:53:00 GMT -6
digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=turn&entity=History.Reno.p0298&id=History.Reno&isize=MAt the bottom of the page De Rudio testifies to seeing Indians remaining to watch the Reno/Benteen location. Previously he talks about hearing signaling and movements of the Indians. At our last visit they gave a demonstration of a wing bone whistle and how they thought the Indians used it. Get up run a few steps and then hit the ground and roll. Repeat We did the same a few years ago in training putt on by ALLERT out of Texas. I think this year they are putting on a train the trainer program in Arizona. Regards Steve Steve, so the 2,000+ warriors that were in heated battle with Custer were just a whistle and jump away from coming back should Reno/Benteen have made a move? You'll have to take that up with some current day Cheyennes. They made the presentation. They made a entrance into the park coming in the back way mounted horseback. They really didn't appear to be to friendly. Good luck talking to them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 6:52:23 GMT -6
DC, If anybody had to make a total mess of grasping the concept of "command and control" on this thread, I guess it was somewhat inevitable that it would have to be you. For you, everything has to be black or white and covered by a sweeping generalisation. Rigid US Army versus native society, so the rigid organisational terminology of the former has to be applied to the latter in every facet or it doesn't apply at all. It's not C2ISR or bust. Basic "command and control" has nothing whatsoever to do with Sitting Bull holding a post-battle court martial of Gall under 1876 US Army regulations if he ignores a request from Crazy Horse. It's not about rigid hierarchical structures enforceable by sanctions, although that is how major developed societies have chosen to structure their armed forces for somewhat obvious reasons. All that "command and control" means, at its most basic and historic level, is the running of an armed force or other organization. And that's it. Forget field regulations/manuals. Forget the Pentagon. Forget NATO. It doesn't have to be anything remotely hierarchical. A tribal village, a family even, is an "organisation" and however informal....can we at least agree that GAC's regiment was on the receiving end of a certain degree of "force" on 25 June 1876? And please don't get me started on the superficial nonsense you are starting to post about WW1 naval warfare. You need to progress beyond reliance upon 1 book, however decent it is, when it is limited (as Gordon readily admits) by its narrow central thesis and not written as an uncontroversial wider general overview. The voyage from Nelson at Trafalgar to Jellicoe at Jutland was an incredibly complex one, and can do without your superficial take on it. If you want to understand Jutland, start (from the British side) with the life of 12"-15" gun barrels and (from the German side) with the SMS Grosser Kurfürst humiliation within swimming distance of England and in full view of British seaside tourists. Your journey will lead you to where you want to be in relation to institutional conservatism and failure to best utilise rapidly evolving technology, but this way you will have the advantage of understanding how you got to your destination. WO No argument that GAC came under a tremedous force at LBH. The question is whether the NA had a C2 structure. The answer is no. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to their whole way of life/culture. They were at LBH clinging to that way a life. A life free from rules, regulations, and authority. In my mind a couple of things at LBH point to the absence of C2. First one is the dessecretion and multilation of the bodies and taking of the soldiers possessions. Sitting Bull made a specific point of telling the warriors that this should not happen. If C2 was in place, this would not have occurred. The second is the 7th being able to walk up on the village. They had been spotted in the days leading up the 25th but no warnings were ever given to Sitting Bull. The first one could possibly be put down to the heat of battle; this second one though, if C2 existed, how was GAC able to get to the camp's doorstep? So if ""command and control" means at its most basic and historic level, is the running of an armed force or organization", what exactly was Sitting Bull running if two of his basic requests were ignored? |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 14, 2015 7:42:20 GMT -6
DC, the NA's may have had no intended flanks, but when they attacked Reno they in fact had 2 flanks, amorphous or not. Regards, Tom Way behind you guys. Isn't that the point of the flank nonsense? Custer could never hit the flank of the Indians going after Reno and the remaining Indians would meet him in the front when he attempted to cross. At best if Custer crossed at Ford B he would in the rear of the Indians that moved toward Reno and he would be exposing his flanks to those remaining in the village as he crossed the river and regrouped . |
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Jan 14, 2015 8:02:56 GMT -6
Yes Steve that village would have swallowed him up, even worse if he sent his men across in stages with one company at a time, if Keogh was on the ridge line nearly a mile away, then none of his companies would be able to take part in any initial assault, leaving only E and F to clear a way through, that’s why I think there was never any assault planned at ford B, the formation and positions lean against the idea.
Ian.
|
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 14, 2015 9:20:33 GMT -6
No argument that GAC came under a tremedous force at LBH. The question is whether the NA had a C2 structure. The answer is no. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to their whole way of life/culture. They were at LBH clinging to that way a life. A life free from rules, regulations, and authority. In my mind a couple of things at LBH point to the absence of C2. First one is the dessecretion and multilation of the bodies and taking of the soldiers possessions. Sitting Bull made a specific point of telling the warriors that this should not happen. If C2 was in place, this would not have occurred. The second is the 7th being able to walk up on the village. They had been spotted in the days leading up the 25th but no warnings were ever given to Sitting Bull. The first one could possibly be put down to the heat of battle; this second one though, if C2 existed, how was GAC able to get to the camp's doorstep? So if ""command and control" means at its most basic and historic level, is the running of an armed force or organization", what exactly was Sitting Bull running if two of his basic requests were ignored? SF, With respect, you have fallen into the same trap as DC and are not distinguishing between a basic weak/militarily undesirable C+C and no C+C whatsoever. "Command" and "control" can also be verbs, not just nouns. What C+C did GAC exercise over the left wing of his cavalry after he sent Martini, but you don't see anybody argue that GAC had no C+C system? It was weak, it was poor, but it was there. You alleged that Reno and Benteen disobeyed orders. At the localised battalion level, who ordered Weir forward? C+C within elements of the hostile village doesn't mean C+C as recognised by US Army manuals in 1876 or 2015. C+C is a concept that has been evolving for millennia. People have always had to gather information, make decisions, take action, communicate, and cooperate with one another in the accomplishment of a common goal, however irregular or localised or decentralised a structure is adopted by a given force or tribal society. C+C is simply the means by which a (not "the") "commander" recognizes what needs to be done and sees to it that appropriate actions are taken. There were plenty of examples, at a localised level, that day. Authority does not need to be "official" in any sense, and is frequently "personal" - deriving from factors such as experience, reputation, skill, character, and personal example. I am not sure that Sitting Bull was running anything, in a localised/tribal non-centralised C+C system. Who has argued what you are seeking to rebut? And if you wish to learn about the RN at Trafalgar, start with your many good American academics on the subject. Marder, Massie, and Halpern in particular. You should then dip into Gordon for its narrow strengths, particularly its analysis of the Tryon/Markham debacle in 1893 and which is the real strength of that book. Ignore the more "conspiracy theory" elements of it. WO |
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 14, 2015 9:23:48 GMT -6
DC, the NA's may have had no intended flanks, but when they attacked Reno they in fact had 2 flanks, amorphous or not. Regards, Tom Way behind you guys. Isn't that the point of the flank nonsense? Custer could never hit the flank of the Indians going after Reno and the remaining Indians would meet him in the front when he attempted to cross. At best if Custer crossed at Ford B he would in the rear of the Indians that moved toward Reno and he would be exposing his flanks to those remaining in the village as he crossed the river and regrouped . AZ,
That was it, in a nutshell. As to Reno "fixing" his hostiles in the valley.........
WO
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 11:18:48 GMT -6
No argument that GAC came under a tremedous force at LBH. The question is whether the NA had a C2 structure. The answer is no. To suggest otherwise does a disservice to their whole way of life/culture. They were at LBH clinging to that way a life. A life free from rules, regulations, and authority. In my mind a couple of things at LBH point to the absence of C2. First one is the dessecretion and multilation of the bodies and taking of the soldiers possessions. Sitting Bull made a specific point of telling the warriors that this should not happen. If C2 was in place, this would not have occurred. The second is the 7th being able to walk up on the village. They had been spotted in the days leading up the 25th but no warnings were ever given to Sitting Bull. The first one could possibly be put down to the heat of battle; this second one though, if C2 existed, how was GAC able to get to the camp's doorstep? So if ""command and control" means at its most basic and historic level, is the running of an armed force or organization", what exactly was Sitting Bull running if two of his basic requests were ignored? SF, With respect, you have fallen into the same trap as DC and are not distinguishing between a basic weak/militarily undesirable C+C and no C+C whatsoever. "Command" and "control" can also be verbs, not just nouns. What C+C did GAC exercise over the left wing of his cavalry after he sent Martini, but you don't see anybody argue that GAC had no C+C system? It was weak, it was poor, but it was there. You alleged that Reno and Benteen disobeyed orders. At the localised battalion level, who ordered Weir forward? C+C within elements of the hostile village doesn't mean C+C as recognised by US Army manuals in 1876 or 2015. C+C is a concept that has been evolving for millennia. People have always had to gather information, make decisions, take action, communicate, and cooperate with one another in the accomplishment of a common goal, however irregular or localised or decentralised a structure is adopted by a given force or tribal society. C+C is simply the means by which a (not "the") "commander" recognizes what needs to be done and sees to it that appropriate actions are taken. There were plenty of examples, at a localised level, that day. Authority does not need to be "official" in any sense, and is frequently "personal" - deriving from factors such as experience, reputation, skill, character, and personal example. I am not sure that Sitting Bull was running anything, in a localised/tribal non-centralised C+C system. Who has argued what you are seeking to rebut? And if you wish to learn about the RN at Trafalgar, start with your many good American academics on the subject. Marder, Massie, and Halpern in particular. You should then dip into Gordon for its narrow strengths, particularly its analysis of the Tryon/Markham debacle in 1893 and which is the real strength of that book. Ignore the more "conspiracy theory" elements of it. WO I think the debate centered at the 50kft view of whether the NA had a C2 structure; formal or informal. My contention is they did not. If we follow your logic path of gather info, make decisions, take action, communicate and cooperate, how do we apply this, at its basic of levels, to the sighting of the 7th Cav by the NA. From all evidence, it would appear that nothing was done with the information. So if SB held authority from experience, reputation, skill, and character, why was his warning about taking from the dead not followed? |
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jan 14, 2015 11:30:19 GMT -6
SF,
May I suggest that you pop across to the "Native American Command and Control" thread where these issues are being addressed in far greater detail? I particularly draw your attention to what Montrose has written. I cannot speak for others, but my point is that there was undoubtedly a localised C+C (if we must use that ghastly term).
WO
|
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2015 11:35:56 GMT -6
Why was solid information, not turned into fully analyzed intelligence at Pearl Harbor or in the Ardennes? That was a sophisticated for its day command and control system that failed. The best system of command then can be thwarted by human inaction, just as a rudimentary system of leadership and direction can be thwarted by the same cause.
Humans make mistakes which no system can fully compensate for.
Sitting Bull was a spiritual leader. He was not a Sioux Grant or Eisenhower. I don't know if you have religion or not, but assuming you do, do you follow all of the spiritual guidance you are given? I get my dose on a daily/weekly basis, and I cannot honestly say I do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2015 11:49:27 GMT -6
Why was solid information, not turned into fully analyzed intelligence at Pearl Harbor or in the Ardennes? That was a sophisticated for its day command and control system that failed. The best system of command then can be thwarted by human inaction, just as a rudimentary system of leadership and direction can be thwarted by the same cause. Humans make mistakes which no system can fully compensate for. Sitting Bull was a spiritual leader. He was not a Sioux Grant or Eisenhower. I don't know if you have religion or not, but assuming you do, do you follow all of the spiritual guidance you are given? I get my dose on a daily/weekly basis, and I cannot honestly say I do. Apologies SO for responding here...last one promise. QC, I believe in the case of Pearl Harbor action was being taken on the intelligence, was just a case of day late, dollar short. In the case of the NAs, they had actionable info and by all accounts did nothing with it. Big difference. Agree. At the root of everything there is almost always a human mistake. No I don't have religion. |
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 14, 2015 13:50:09 GMT -6
Solid information and fully analyzed intelligence are two different things
A human mistake within a system (no matter how sophisticated or rudimentary the system is) is not evidence of non-existent system. It is evidence of human error.
You not having religion does not change the point made. The admonition was a spiritual nature, and one made with no authority to enforce, therefore not relevant to the point you attempted to make.
|
|
