Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 16:38:36 GMT -6
Shaw, Your goal is achieved and GAC keeps Benteen and Reno close. Yates has taken the recon command and headed left and Keogh is ordered to cross Ford A and charge. How do things develop from here? Just curious on how you think it would have played differently. If Yates was as much Custer's boy as you think and would have followed his orders to the letter of the law he would have continued over hill and dale looking for something to pitch into until he ran into the Big Horn Mountains. On his way back he might have pitched into the moving village. Keogh also if Custer's boy would have followed Custer's orders to the letter of the law, would have died in the village, if he could have gotten that far, his entire flank would have been enveloped. By the way do some reading about Keogh's drinking, he could drink Reno under the table. Fact! And I like Keogh, brave man who followed orders to death.
Regards, Tom
Not my assertions, just curious on what Shaw believes would have been different if the players had lined up differently. Keogh, being Irish, could drink us all under the table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 16:46:06 GMT -6
Scarface: It is not a matter of character. I think if you re-read my first line it was about being qualified. You can be of perfectly good character and be an exceptional company commander and still not be qualified to be a battalion commander, and battalion command is the subject presently on the table. The janitor in your building, and the senior clerk in your company may be exceptional at their jobs and of good character, but are they qualified to do your job. The three I mentioned, MacDougal, Benteen, and Yates, were qualified, by maturity of judgment, demonstrated competence, and experience. Keogh was not, and the non-results of his sector of battle ridge point to that fact. Understood QC, but I think you are being way to harsh to suggest the man wasn't qualified to pour piss from a boot. Many senior officers believed him to be a more than capable officer. To reduce him in ability to below pouring piss from a boot is way over stating your case and an unfair summation of the man's capabilities.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 7, 2015 17:10:16 GMT -6
I will then rephrase to something you may find more refined and something that will set the parameters of the issue in better context.
Keogh was not qualified to pour piss from a boot as far as being a battalion commander.
You must understand that personalities, good or bad do not make a hill of beans difference to me. If the Marquis de Sade, Lorenzo de Medici, and Judas Iscariot could run a battalion, they could damned well work for me. If the Virgin Mary, the Archangel Gabriel, and Saint Francis of Assisi, and, and the entire Roundtable could not they would join the non-piss pourers as well.
It is all about results in battle, and the confidence you have in the individual to exercise command. It is not a strength of character, popularity, or hale fellow well met contest. It is about winning and in the process expending as little of this nations treasure, the lives of its sons, as possible.
As a side note, there was no one that felt himself more unqualified then I to do that job on my first day. I was there because someone had confidence in me. Had I failed I would have been kicked to the curb, and I would have deserved it.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 7, 2015 17:11:54 GMT -6
Scarface: It is not a matter of character. I think if you re-read my first line it was about being qualified. You can be of perfectly good character and be an exceptional company commander and still not be qualified to be a battalion commander, and battalion command is the subject presently on the table. The janitor in your building, and the senior clerk in your company may be exceptional at their jobs and of good character, but are they qualified to do your job. The three I mentioned, MacDougal, Benteen, and Yates, were qualified, by maturity of judgment, demonstrated competence, and experience. Keogh was not, and the non-results of his sector of battle ridge point to that fact. Understood QC, but I think you are being way to harsh to suggest the man wasn't qualified to pour piss from a boot. Many senior officers believed him to be a more than capable officer. To reduce him in ability to below pouring piss from a boot is way over stating your case and an unfair summation of the man's capabilities. I believe, and I ask people to correct me if I am wrong, that someone can be a very capable offier but not a person capable of commanding things like multiple commands. Like when I worked in a factory, we had an excellent line lead who got promoted to a department shift head. She just couldn't multitask and coordinate the larger task of dealing with numerous lines plus the people who worked with the lines but not on the lines like line leads, mechanics, inspectors, and other departments. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 7, 2015 17:15:24 GMT -6
I will then rephrase to something you may find more refined and something that will set the parameters of the issue in better context. Keogh was not qualified to pour piss from a boot as far as being a battalion commander. You must understand that personalities, good or bad do not make a hill of beans difference to me. It the Marquis de Sade, Lorenzo de Medici, and Judas Iscariot could run a battalion, they could damned well work for me. If the Virgin Mary, the Archangel Gabriel, and Saint Francis of Assisi, and and the entire Roundtable could not they would join the non-piss pourers as well. You hang out with very interesting people who would make for an interesting dinner. But I get your point. Competence over popularity. Beth
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 7, 2015 17:16:38 GMT -6
This thread is wandering all over the prairie.
Do we want a thread discussing company commanders? Topics like competency and ability?
Scar, warning order: You won't like it. Garrison poseurs versus competent and capable leaders.
Keough showed himself at LBH to be incompetent at company and field grade. He had no skills above 2LT. TC was a wonderful private. Please show me he had any capability as a leader, corporal or higher?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 7, 2015 17:24:43 GMT -6
I will then rephrase to something you may find more refined and something that will set the parameters of the issue in better context. Keogh was not qualified to pour piss from a boot as far as being a battalion commander. You must understand that personalities, good or bad do not make a hill of beans difference to me. If the Marquis de Sade, Lorenzo de Medici, and Judas Iscariot could run a battalion, they could damned well work for me. If the Virgin Mary, the Archangel Gabriel, and Saint Francis of Assisi, and, and the entire Roundtable could not they would join the non-piss pourers as well. It is all about results in battle, and the confidence you have in the individual to exercise command. It is not a strength of character, popularity, or hale fellow well met contest. It is about winning and in the process expending as little of this nations treasure, the lives of its sons, as possible. As a side note, there was no one that felt himself more unqualified then I to do that job on my first day. I was there because someone had confidence in me. Had I failed I would have been kicked to the curb, and I would have deserved it. I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion that Keogh was not qualified to be a battalion commander. But you could have simply said he was not qualified, a step to far for a fine officer and courageous soldier. I take exception to saying he was not qualified to pour pee from a boot. Not to belabor the point but he deserves a little better summation than you have given him.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 7, 2015 17:34:18 GMT -6
I think if a Major General can and did say that (or was it not worth a bucket of spit, I forget) it about another Major General, his Army commander, and it proved to be true, a Lieutenant Colonel is entitled to express his opinion about the qualifications of a Captain.
It is not personal. I would drink and socialize with the man. It is professional and the pee and boot are an evaluation of his professional capabilities.
If the man were my best friend, I would say the same thing. The difference is were he my best friend he would understand the meaning. He would not like it any more than you do, but he would understand how it was meant. I don't believe you do. That's OK though.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 7, 2015 17:35:25 GMT -6
This thread is wandering all over the prairie. Do we want a thread discussing company commanders? Topics like competency and ability? Scar, warning order: You won't like it. Garrison poseurs versus competent and capable leaders. Keough showed himself at LBH to be incompetent at company and field grade. He had no skills above 2LT. TC was a wonderful private. Please show me he had any capability as a leader, corporal or higher? I would appreciate a thread on company commanders. I would also appreciate a thread were we could take fantasy what ifs to. Like if Reno had the valley scout and Benteen the village charge. It's fun to speculate and I have learned a lot reading specualation, but they don't really belong with actual historic battle information. And as one of the biggest sinners when it comes to taking a thread all over the place, I apologize. Feel free to give me a verbal finger slap and say stay with the conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 8, 2015 7:24:18 GMT -6
Well it seems as the 7th Cav had to place company commanders in the roll of battalion commander, captains are company Co/s, majors are battalion Co/s, but as Justin said, they were down two Majors, at full strength the 7th could have looked like this (if we use a triangle formation).
Colonel G.A. Custer 1st Battalion – Co Major Reno 4 x Companies (I, F, C & B) 2nd Battalion – Co Major Merrill 4 x Companies (E, L, M & D) 3rd Battalion – Co Major Tilford 4 x Companies (A, K, G & H)
As well as Merrill and Tilford, they were also missing;
Four company commanders; Capt. Hale (K Coy) Capt. Sheridan (L Coy) Cap.t Ilsley (E Coy) Capt. Tourtellote (G Coy)
Five 1st Lieutenants; 1st Lt. Bell (D Coy) 1st Lt. Jackson (F Coy) 1st Lt. Braden (L Coy) 1st Lt. Craycroft (B Coy) 1st Lt. Nowland (QM)
Four 2nd Lieutenants; 2nd Lt. Larned (F Coy) 2nd Lt. Garlington (H Coy) 2nd Lt. Nave (I Coy) 2nd Lt. Eckerson (L Coy)
So placing Keogh (company commander) as a battalion commander (major’s role) was a promotion too far.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 8, 2015 9:27:03 GMT -6
Ian: I think you could justify the comment that giving the man a commission was a promotion too far.
Custer ran the 7th Cavalry as if it was a VFW golf weekend, picnic, and splash party, not a regiment of cavalry.
The normal grading system A, B+, C-, and so on are not applicable when you speak concerning officer performance. There is only pass or fail.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 8, 2015 12:40:08 GMT -6
After Custer sent Reno into the valley, who did he have left that would have been a better choice than Keogh?
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 8, 2015 13:09:22 GMT -6
That’s it Beth, he had five company commanders and no battalion commanders, so if he wanted to split into 3-2, then the three company battalion had to be led by a company C/o, so Custer really had no choice but to do this, because his regiments was stripped of officers, having said that though, in 1876 a standard cavalry company had 70 all ranks (this swelled to 100 soon after), which was led by a captain and two Lieutenants, now Keogh’s battalion had around 120 all ranks, which is only about 40 men more than a full strength company, but add to this the number of officers the battalion had (1 x captain & 4 x Lieutenants), so in reality Keogh commanded a strengthen company containing five officers.
As for Keogh’s replacement, I can only think of maybe Yates.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Feb 8, 2015 13:28:52 GMT -6
That’s it Beth, he had five company commanders and no battalion commanders, so if he wanted to split into 3-2, then the three company battalion had to be led by a company C/o, so Custer really had no choice but to do this, because his regiments was stripped of officers, having said that though, in 1876 a standard cavalry company had 70 all ranks (this swelled to 100 soon after), which was led by a captain and two Lieutenants, now Keogh’s battalion had around 120 all ranks, which is only about 40 men more than a full strength company, but add to this the number of officers the battalion had (1 x captain & 4 x Lieutenants), so in reality Keogh commanded a strengthen company containing five officers. As for Keogh’s replacement, I can only think of maybe Yates. Ian. Why was the 7th so low on officers? Governmen funding? Lack of canidates? People not wanting to work under Custer? What is the purpose of a headquarter's staff during actual battle? Would Custer have been better off assigning some of his staff to fill the holes? Beth
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 8, 2015 14:34:17 GMT -6
Phil's son was off playing, several were on detached duty, several on leave.
Regards, Tom
|
|