Custer--Wing commander

[Beth]

While spending a leisurely afternoon visiting abroad, I came across a statement about Custer acting as a wing commander at LBH.  My question in the CW would that basically describe how he worked under the command of an even more senior officer who oversaw the entire operation?  If so could that have possibly have had an impact on what happend at LBH, that he was more acting in the role of someone in charge of a small group, instead of as commander over all?  I hope that isn't to convolted to understand.

Beth

[tubman13]

He was in charge of many, but controlled by superiors at all times. They pulled his butt out of the fire more than once.

Regards,
Tom

[welshofficer]

Beth,

Although GAC abolished the two wings (left and right) formation of the 7th cavalry a few days before the battle, he effectively commanded the "right" wing of the regiment on the 25th - the Yates and Keogh battalions, minus B company guarding the mule train. Somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but these were the 6 companies that Reno took on his scout.

WO

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2015 19:12:49 GMT -6 welshofficer said:

Beth,

Although GAC abolished the two wings (left and right) formation of the 7th cavalry a few days before the battle, he effectively commanded the "right" wing of the regiment on the 25th - the Yates and Keogh battalions, minus B company guarding the mule train. Somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but these were the 6 companies that Reno took on his scout.

WO

What happened to the Welsh dragons?!? Against a weakened England team.....on your home field.....terrible.

[welshofficer]

SF,

A match lasts 80 mins....no point going 16-8 up at half-time and then falling asleep.......

England should have won by more in the end, to be frank. The second half was worst Welsh 40 mins since opening half against Ireland in 2013.

WO

[Beth]

I believe that at the time commanders would be expected to be leading their men to battle. When did it change or has it? With the ablity to communicate distances?

[Deleted]

Feb 6, 2015 19:57:06 GMT -6 welshofficer said:

SF,

A match lasts 80 mins....no point going 16-8 up at half-time and then falling asleep.......

England should have won by more in the end, to be frank. The second half was worst Welsh 40 mins since opening half against Ireland in 2013.

WO

Wide open for Ireland now with England and France at home. Looking forward to the WC later this year.

[quincannon]

The United States Cavalry and even carrying that over to the Armored and Cavalry Divisions of WWII has always had an inexplicable love affair with the number two.

While the wing arrangement was not officially maintained, for all practical purposes it was still in effect as WO suggests.

I do not know, nor do I understand this fascination with the number two, but it led to piss poor force design in WWII, and the more enlightened armored division commanders modified their divisions with attachments to achieve a more flexible three. We repeated the error again with the initial brigade combat team designs early this century, and again we failed to the point where the Amy is currently half way through a reorganization that will restore threes. Two is the least flexible organizational structure, three is more than adequate, four is optimum. We can't afford fours.

Custer would have been much better off in terms of tactical options, had he divided the regiment into three battalions, two of four companies, and his designated reserve battalion having three, with one company guarding the trains.

[montrose]

Let's define terms first.

Organizations.

Regiment. Permanent organization of 12 companies, no intermediate headquarters.

Wing. Temporary organization of 2 or more battalions.

Battalion. Temporary organization of 2 or more companies.

Company. Permanent organization of soldiers, no intermediate HQ or elements.

Platoon/Squad/Fours/Detachment. Temporary organization of 2 or more soldiers.

Effective command. The hypothesis is that LTC Custer acted more as a wing commander than a regimental commander. SO how will we rate his performance managing the 2 BNs he led north? Grossly incompetent. He left Keough BN on Calhoun Hill and moved on. He later sat with the Yates BN for an estimates 20 minutes on the north end of Battle Ridge while the Keough Bn was destroyed on the south end.

Both Bns fell about due to weak commanders with poor control. The five companies died 5 separate deaths, all widely scattered. None were in supporting distance of any other.

It should be evident from this that he also failed as a BN commander.

At best we can say that he was acting as a company commander, not as regimental or Bn commander. I think it more probable that he was acting as a scout detachment commander, something any sergeant could do.

Leader's reconnaissance. Now let's be fair. A standard technique then and now is a leader's recon. This is where the commander goes forward to examine the area of a planned attack. Leader takes a small security element. You may not get all the way to objective, depends on enemy and METTT. But you look for avenues of approach, assembly areas, rally points, etc. But this is done BEFORE the attack. Meaning before MAJ Reno crosses Ford A.

When you do a leader's recon, you appoint a commander to run the unit in your absence. Who was in command of the 7th cavalry at LBH? Who provided command and control of the entire unit, or the various BNs?

Respectfully,

William

[Yan Taylor]

Justin I have not watched the game yet, I had a few painting jobs to do early evening and St Helen's playing the Catalans Dragons so I watched the end of that, I will watch the Wales v England game tonight when everyone has gone to bed (around 10:30) as Saturday night is my night to kickback and and enjoy a few drinks (not too many though, I have work tomorrow).

But I must admit that booing the England team and then booing the national anthem (god save the queen) must have got to our boys, and I do not agree with such disrespect, I have never booed of jeered at any national team or national anthem and that includes the French and Australians.

Ian.

[Yan Taylor]

Montrose, when you say no intermediate HQ in a company, then what would you call the two officers, 1st sergeant and two trumpeters?

Custer’s command method was to separate his regiment into four battalions, Reno, Benteen and MacDougal led three of them, these three battalions virtually acted alone once GAC had left them, so he must have had faith in these three officers giving that they were only fighting Indians (not my view of course), so that left him at the head of a combat group of two battalions, again GAC seemed to attach F Company to the RHQ and give Smith a free reign as this company seemed to act independently (again only my view), back to Keogh, GAC must have placed the same faith in him as the other three officers and that was to get the job done without having to worry about his rear.

You could have a point there Montrose, Custer may have done a leaders recon, with F Company as his security element.

Ian.

[montrose]

Ian,

If you want to understand a military organization, go to the first formation at O dark thirty. An 1876 company is one mass formation. There are no platoons, no squads. It is the lowest organized unit in the US Army.

Capiche? I think your WW2 division posts show an advanced understanding of military organization design.

[quincannon]

Ian: Military organizations are fielded on the basis of echelonment of command, and span of control.

The 1876 construct for that echelonment was Army, Army Corps, Division, Brigade, Regiment, Company. There was no organized echelon between regiment and company. There was no organized echelon between company commander and private soldier.

When we insert a Major between the regimental commander and the company commander, we are in fact inserting one man (no staff or tools of command), adding to him a task organization composed of a variable number of companies, which may have or may not have trained and worked together before. The root of the word, battaglia, suggests an organization designed to fight as one body of manageable parts. That did not exist in 1876. The company, the point of the spear was even worse off. In theory such an organization could be what you want it to be. In practice it never achieved anything in the way of organizational effectiveness, and that was because of poor design, there being no provision in that design for any structured intermediate level.

So what we see in 1876 is that the Army had the upper echelons, Army, Corps, Division, Brigade and Regiment, pretty much right . Below regiment though the echelon broke down, probably due o the fact that before the relatively rapid fire, breech loading weapon appears the regiment generally fought as a whole. There was no need. As units spread out on the battlefield the need to insert permanent echelons of command (that were structured and equipped to command)became absolutely necessary, and it took the U S Army forty years to recognize the fact.

Span of control. Two is the easiest, but also the most inflexible. The optimum is somewhere between three and five. Six and above and you start placing a strain on the structure, to the point where it will eventually break down.

Over the years since LBH, Army Groups, and Armies have disappeared, primarily due to enhanced communications and the capability of smaller units to control and occupy larger areas of battle space. There is today a question as to if the corps level should be retained in favor of the division being the topmost echelon. Will and I disagree "somewhat" on this point. The division should be retained as the operational level headquarters. Will suggests that the corps, as an Army structure should be eliminated. My position is that you need a theater level joint headquarters, as a buffer between national command authority and the operational level of conflict. You have to call it something.

[Yan Taylor]

Thanks Montrose, could you or Chuck please answer a question for me? 2nd Lt. Hodgson was Reno’s Adjutant in the valley, if Reno had been killed I don’t think Hodgson would take charge, I think that would have probably gone to Captain French, So would Hodgson assume the role of Adjutant to French leaving Lt. Mathey to command M Company.

Chuck, are you saying that Reno should have been riding next to GAC in the RHQ?

That would leave you eight Captains;
Capt. Benteen
Capt. Keogh
Capt. Yates
Capt. Weir
Capt. French
Capt. Moylan
Capt. Custer
Capt. McDougall

If you then spit the regiment into three battalions with each one containing four companies, how would you divide these Captains? Going on rank then the three senior Captains are Benteen, Keogh and Yates, the remaining Captains would remain Company Commanders.

RHQ:
Col Custer & Maj. Reno

1st Battalion
Bn Co - Capt. Benteen

2nd Battalion
Bn Co - Capt. Keogh

3rd Battalion
Bn Co - Capt. Yates

Packs: Capt. McDougall

Ian.

[quincannon]

Had Reno been KIA or WIA, the next senior line officer would assume command. I see no reason why Hodgson would not be retained. That decision is up to the man who assumes command.

It matters not to me if Little Jack Horner, Mighty Mouse, and Little Miss Muffet are the battalion commanders. As long as they are the best available that is all that matters. These various personalities hold no great interest for me.

It was the system that was flawed. One man does not a battalion headquarters make. You cannot even properly administer an organization with one man, much less lead it in battle. Also remember that anyone picked to help that battalion commander, be it officer or enlisted must come at the expense of reducing command and control at company level and combat power at the same level. It was a hell of a piss poor way to run a railroad.

Were it my decision to make, Reno would be with the regimental commander and serve as the deputy, against the event that the commander becomes a casualty. Of course I would not be riding around like a chicken with its head cut off either. Rather I would be exercising command of the whole.

My choice of battalion commanders would be MacDougal, Benteen, and Yates, having Yates lead the short battalion. Keogh would be placed where he could do the least harm. Tom Custer would be leading a company. That is all, considering that I had the packs trailing behind. As you know Ian I would not, not in a million years. My preference would be three with four each. Never leave home without all the combat power you can muster.