|
Post by tubman13 on May 27, 2015 10:53:49 GMT -6
Will The decision to not cache the useless pack train was a major cause of the defeat. Hundreds of shooters were kept out of the fight by this incompetent call. And for what? If you win, eat the enemies food stores. If you lose, eat the mules. If the bad guys captured your train, it just did not matter.What a remarkable post! I do not remember ever reading about the pack train being a cause of GAC's losing the battle. Now that I read your post I see a whole new facet of this conflict. Thank you for sharing this information with me. Regards Dave Dave, Rarely does anyone come up with new revelations, just different perspective. When you wish to start a proper fire you need kindling the quicker and larger the fire the more kindling you need. The use or misuse of the pack train was just one more piece to add to the eventual conflagration. Tullock's scout or lack thereof and not sending messenger to Terry might be another.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 10:59:50 GMT -6
Everything this morning is first rate/ Good questions. Excellent analysis. All designed to move our understanding forward at a deliberate, but still brisk pace. Some random thoughts;
Every U S Army combat organization, then and now was purposefully designed to operate alone for short periods of time. That is what the design says, but that capability is reduced both then and now by the absence of assigned and on hand strength. The pack train further reduced the on hand strength at the point of the spear.
In his incompetent use of his weapons systems, tiring his soldiers and animals, he reduced his combat potential and readiness considerably. Combat readiness is a melding of man and means.
One time, for about a year, I had a support platoon, in a battalion of the same relative size as Custer's 7th Regiment. Our job was to draw, transport, and distribute most classes of supplies, but the big three were fuel, food, and ammunition. We split our operations between two general locations, the brigade trains, and the battalion combat trains, and operated the logistics infrastructure of the battalion with just shy of forty soldiers, and we provided for our own security. Now Custer's pack train was more like the combat trains from which I operated. In effect those combat trains were similar to a cashe. They stayed out of the way purposefully, of the three maneuver companies as they plied their trade. We were able to do this because before and operation we topped them off with everything anticipated that they would need during that operation. Never once was there a support platoon in the attack. Never once did my commander have to call me forward for any purpose of mid battle replenishment. We had the stuff, but it was our place to get in at the conclusion and replenish what had been expended. Draw your own conclusions as to how this experience of mine would apply to the LBH of 24-25 June, had we been dealing with even a modicum of competence on the part of the commander.
WO: Dispersing of combat power on the eve of or during battle is never correct. Trying to put one's finger in the hole of a dam with the breach the size of a tractor trailer, to attempt to stem the flow of water does not make much sense does it.
Mac: Rommel, a Field Marshall insisted on eating the same rations as Private Heinz Snuffy in the 15th Panzer Division. He did this as a measure of his own troops energy, endurance, and therefore ability. Custer rode bred horses, not the remount trash issued to his soldiers. Not a horse expert, don't claim to be, but he had no measure of what the horses of others were capable of judging only the mounts he rode. He could also dismount at the end of a long day and hand the horse over to a groom for maintenance. His tired soldiers did not have that luxury, and when you are tired you are prone to shortcuts. West of Grande Junction and all the way to Reno US Route 50 runs across the desert. It is called the most lonely road in America. There is nothing out there, no cell coverage, no place to tend to a breakdown, very little in the way of gas available. I will check with Steve later to see if this is a decent example of what I am trying to get across. It strikes me that Custer's management of horse flesh was like forming a convoy to go across Route 50 to Reno, you in your dealer fresh and serviced Mercedes and those following in junkers freshly obtained from Big Bob's Used Cars, Gin Mill and Pool Hall, and have the expectation that all those junkers would perform as well as your Mercedes.
Montrose, Justin and I are never far apart in saying the same thing, sometimes in different ways. That does not mean we agree 100 percent on every issue, but we all recognize a goddamned fool in command of a regiment of cavalry when we see it.
TO ALL: Never assume as you meander through these pages, that any reason offered for anything Custer did makes it a GOOD REASON. It is simply a reason, and as all of us know, we have all done many things in our lives for a reason, that did not turn out to be very good.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 11:24:19 GMT -6
QC Custer had two horses that he could swap out-Dandy and Vic. I don't know if he swapped on a day to day bases or a couple times a day. I believe though that most of the senior officers rode their own horses--it was a perk of the rank. I believe though that Custer as commander should have been a bit in tune with the horses of the rank and file. He had a long history though of using up his regiment's horses with long rides so I am assuming he was the type of person that was just blind to anything but his own personal interests. BTW. I found this imagine of Custer's horses link I am no expert and hopefully AZ can confirm or set me straight but when you look at those two horses there are signs of saddle sores on their back (the white marks), so perhaps Custer didn't even treat his own horses well.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 27, 2015 11:38:22 GMT -6
Montrose,
Is not failing to cache the supply train a symptom of failing to throw the scouts out far enough ahead in order to buy time in which to make key tactical decisions? Keeping the train, even after the divide, was evidence of a "just in case of need" mentality? As you say, labour intensive...
WO
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 11:44:51 GMT -6
Don't know enough about horses to even comment, but considering that a horse was an integral part of a combat system, it is a commander's first duty consistent with his PRIME dual track responsibility, - Accomplish the Mission - Look out for the Welfare of the troops - to see that every part and parcel of the combat systems in his charge are well maintained a ready. Not just when you move out the gate ready, but always ready. That's why leaders make the big bucks. That's why you are awake when your soldiers sleep, making sure all is in readiness for the morrow. That is why you must share with them their multitude of discomforts. You must first measure the man, then the weapon, then the mobility, but measure all or you will fail.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 12:04:28 GMT -6
Don't know enough about horses to even comment, but considering that a horse was an integral part of a combat system, it is a commander's first duty consistent with his PRIME dual track responsibility, - Accomplish the Mission - Look out for the Welfare of the troops - to see that every part and parcel of the combat systems in his charge are well maintained a ready. Not just when you move out the gate ready, but always ready. That's why leaders make the big bucks. That's why you are awake when your soldiers sleep, making sure all is in readiness for the morrow. That is why you must share with them their multitude of discomforts. You must first measure the man, then the weapon, then the mobility, but measure all or you will fail. I agree with you about the commander being responsible for their combat system but tell me. When you were in charge of that support platoon, did you check each vehicle or did you have someone lower do it and report to you? Custer's failure in my mind isn't just that he didn't personally note the welfare but that he apparently had no one in place to report to him on a regular basis about the readiness of his regiment or if he did, he elected to ignore them. I may be making the classic mistake by assuming but it seems to me that a commander can't be everywhere at once which is why he should have competent people, not 'yes men' and brown nosers advising him and acting as his eyes and ears.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 27, 2015 12:16:48 GMT -6
Yes it was a good post Beth and whats important about the pack train is that it took around 135-140 Officers, NCOs and EMs out of the firing line.
That's really sad about Mrs Calhoun, it looks like the wife of every man who died on that campaign will play second fiddle to Libbie Custer.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 12:28:16 GMT -6
It depends. When it came to weapons I personally checked them, as I did in every position of leadership I ever held. Sometimes I would check on vehicles and other equipment myself, but most often it was checked initially by a subordinate, and I checked the checker. Part of your responsibility as a leader is to develop your junior leaders. In garrison I attended motor stables every day. Every day. Units do well those things the boss checks. There is more than one subordinate that tried to trade performance with lip service. They only did it once.
Keep in mind you do not have to check them all. You must check enough to assure yourself that your orders are being carried out. If you have a hundred, and you pick ten at random, you can assume that with the same junior leaders supervising, that if those ten are up to snuff, the remaining ninety will be as well. You never check the same ten though.
Same thing with doing an inventory. We did 10% a month. If in that ten percent every item was present, and well maintained, you could make the assumption that all was well with the rest of your stuff. If on the other hand there was missing equipment, and that which was there was dirty and broken, it was time for a hundred percenter, and taking a few people to the woodshed.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 27, 2015 13:48:40 GMT -6
It depends. When it came to weapons I personally checked them, as I did in every position of leadership I ever held. Sometimes I would check on vehicles and other equipment myself, but most often it was checked initially by a subordinate, and I checked the checker. Part of your responsibility as a leader is to develop your junior leaders. In garrison I attended motor stables every day. Every day. Units do well those things the boss checks. There is more than one subordinate that tried to trade performance with lip service. They only did it once. Keep in mind you do not have to check them all. You must check enough to assure yourself that your orders are being carried out. If you have a hundred, and you pick ten at random, you can assume that with the same junior leaders supervising, that if those ten are up to snuff, the remaining ninety will be as well. You never check the same ten though. Same thing with doing an inventory. We did 10% a month. If in that ten percent every item was present, and well maintained, you could make the assumption that all was well with the rest of your stuff. If on the other hand there was missing equipment, and that which was there was dirty and broken, it was time for a hundred percenter, and taking a few people to the woodshed. I image boss checks are quite effective. I imagine just the thought of the possibility of one of your tongue lashings had the more timid quaking in their boots. I worked in Quality control for years. I understand sampling. Of course what I was sampling had to be pulled from orders of 10000 and examined under a microscope plus with calipers and gauges... But considering the product made its way into things like pace makers and missiles you wouldn't expect less (to be clear the final product was always tested 100%-sampling was for component parts)
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 27, 2015 14:05:58 GMT -6
I seldom got mad Beth. I got rid one way or another. Most times the person was salvageable. and after a period of very close supervision the issue was corrected. At other times if the mistake was so gross, and so critical to unit mission, and performance there was only one alternative - relief. That is never to be done lightly, but when it is called for you had better do it quickly and insure that while it is not publicized, it is known and serves as an object lesson.
I would expect no better treatment for myself.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on May 28, 2015 11:14:31 GMT -6
Hey you guys... did we establish a separate thread for this "Reno" business or has it all been done by PM? 34,000 and counting... with enough digressions to fill a swimming pool. Suddenly the implications of Tullock's loom larger and larger, even more than I thought originally. Very, very interesting stuff... and I am finally using the full brunt of one of my serious research documents. Steer me in the right direction please... Best wishes, Fred. Fred,
The Welsh Officer would like to point out, thanks to Amazon today and some spare time in June, that he is now entering his own "critical period"......
Looking forward in particular to your theories on Tullock's and the Deep Ravine headcut......
WO
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 28, 2015 11:22:04 GMT -6
WO,
The Tullock's business is in there, but will be greatly expanded in Book V. I do not dwell too long on the Deep Ravine headcut in that book, but go into it in a little more detail in an article I hope to see published fairly soon. If and when it does get published I will try to send you a PDF on it.
Hope you enjoy the book... and remember, the timelines rule all. Break out the bookmarks... I have 6 or 7 running at one time in some places.
And thanks... as always.
Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 28, 2015 12:33:45 GMT -6
WO, The Tullock's business is in there, but will be greatly expanded in Book V. I do not dwell too long on the Deep Ravine headcut in that book, but go into it in a little more detail in an article I hope to see published fairly soon. If and when it does get published I will try to send you a PDF on it. Hope you enjoy the book... and remember, the timelines rule all. Break out the bookmarks... I have 6 or 7 running at one time in some places. And thanks... as always. Very best wishes, Fred. Kidlet 2 gets out of school next Friday. She has promised to help me with a project I have been trying to work on which is to put your timeline in motion on a map. Granted it is going to be a pretty much basic power point animation like what custer apollo did in youtube. My main problem has been finding a good map. I expect to be calling for help when it comes to Reno's move down the valley because I just can't understand how everyone got shifted around.--in fact it is what made me want to animate it. Beth
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 28, 2015 13:34:03 GMT -6
She has promised to help me with a project I have been trying to work on which is to put your timeline in motion on a map. Granted it is going to be a pretty much basic power point animation like what custer apollo did in youtube. My main problem has been finding a good map. I expect to be calling for help when it comes to Reno's move down the valley because I just can't understand how everyone got shifted around.--in fact it is what made me want to animate it. You have my phone number and you have my e-mail address. Ask away. I will be at the LBHA conference, June 12 and 13; driving home on the 14th. Otherwise, my time is fairly free.... Best wishes, Fred.
|
|