|
Post by benteen on Mar 3, 2017 12:30:09 GMT -6
Hi AZ American officers are taught to make the best available decision which could include not following an order if the best available decision is contrary to an order.In practice this means that if a subordinate thinks he has a better idea than the CO he gets to implement his idea yes? cheers Richard Hi Richard. I believe that an Officers justification for deviating from his orders is dictated by circumstances not ideas. If he thinks he has a better idea than the C.O. then it should be discussed before he is given his mission and orders. But with that being said, he better damn well be right, that the circumstances did in fact permit him to deviate. I dont say that as a fact, but rather my opinion Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 3, 2017 13:18:45 GMT -6
Hi Dan
I believe that an Officers justification for deviating from his orders is dictated by circumstances not ideas. If he thinks he has a better idea than the C.O. then it should be discussed before he is given his mission and orders. But with that being said, he better damn well be right, that the circumstances did in fact permit him to deviate.
I'm in general agreement, perhaps I could suggest a little tweeking of the sequence ......the choice of mission is not up for discussion however most militaries will have some kind of questions format. My experience in this field is limited to section level where after the bit where the nco says we will kill all enemy there he says any questions?
I believe that an Officers justification for deviating from his orders
Perhaps people confuse orders with mission. A mission might contain certain orders which circumstances might dictate require certain alterations provided that the changes do not negate the mission. Thus assisting Reno could be justified provided that the assisting did not jeopardise the mission. Granting Reno 100% assistance and niente di niente to the mission was a tad exotic.But at least he got the deviating right. Always a pleasure Dan. Richard ps whats the connection with the old sod?
|
|
|
Post by Bruce Robert on Mar 3, 2017 14:01:14 GMT -6
Greetings,
While I can see the possibility that the alleged "ford D plan" might have been based upon Benteen linking with Kehoe, I also think that it is a hypotheses at best. Do we have any data to support this other than it is a plausible plan.
Second, how can Benteen be accused of violating orders when he didn't have any orders regarding the above, nor any other plan? In short, what was the plan? If we, with hindsight, can't say what the plan was, how can we expect Benteen to have known?
Wasn't Benteen carrying out his orders by scouting in the direction Custer sent him? I don't condemn Custer for those orders, as they were still in recon mode. They were still trying to pin down where and in what numbers the enemy was. As such, Benteen is carrying out his orders.
The written orders from Martini did not provide a plan, but a simple directive which he then began to follow. There were no attack orders, no "we are attacking the village," and no specific info as to where or how. And clearly, I would go so far as to say definitively, no sense of "Custer might be in trouble."
I see no justification for suggesting that Benteen did anything wrong. Perhaps he made mistakes, he is human after all, and operating with limited intell, but beyond that, not only didn't he violate orders, he helped save what was left of Reno's command.
Having said thus, I am open to additional info, data, etc. that would support a more vigorous assessment of Benteen's "failures," but until then, I stand by my assessment.
Cheers, Bruce
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 3, 2017 14:36:31 GMT -6
Hi Bruce Benteen has at his disposal a force equivalent to that of Custer. He knows that Custer has found a big village and it would not take a military genius to realise that 5 companies might be of some use to the mission commander. Military protocol would oblige Benteen to report to Custer and if that were not possible he should at least have sent a messenger through to him. Annieway one can but ask how halting over 200 troops and reserve ammo supported the mission?
Just in passing There must have been more than 2000 rounds in reserve. 2000 rounds equates to less than 4 rounds a man. Cheers Richard
PS Saving Reno required 5 minutes and zero expenditure of ammo.
|
|
|
Post by Colt45 on Mar 3, 2017 14:55:27 GMT -6
No, the ford D scenario has all 5 companys approaching the river to cross. The traditional theory shows Keogh waiting and watching for Benteen, with only 2 companys going to ford D.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2017 16:06:19 GMT -6
Where and when? And define "wait." Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2017 16:22:12 GMT -6
While I can see the possibility that the alleged "ford D plan" might have been based upon Benteen linking with Kehoe, I also think that it is a hypotheses at best. Do we have any data to support this other than it is a plausible plan. What else might you suggest? Why else would Custer go to Ford D? Frankly, I agree with you regarding Benteen and "orders," but I am a bit confused when you say "plan." Do you mean an overall plan from Custer; or Benteen's own "plan"; or something from Reno? Otherwise, I think you are spot-on correct. Again, you are right on the money. I will say this, however: if you look at Custer's movements from the moment he swung off from Reno in Reno Creek valley, to his northernmost advance, i.e., Ford D, as a single reconnaissance, you may wind up understanding the entire event better. At no time and at no place did Custer ever see the full extent of the village... though when at Ford B, he probably understood its full dimensions. Dimensions, however, do not necessarily mean size and it is my contention Custer never fully understood the size of the village until he had backtracked from Ford D and was on top of Cemetery Ridge. Once again, absolutely correct. I might answer your last phrase by saying, "That is because we wasn't!" Absolutely correct. As far as I am concerned all arguments to the contrary are fallacious. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2017 16:24:51 GMT -6
I believe that an Officers justification for deviating from his orders is dictated by circumstances not ideas. If he thinks he has a better idea than the C.O. then it should be discussed before he is given his mission and orders. But with that being said, he better damn well be right, that the circumstances did in fact permit him to deviate. I dont say that as a fact, but rather my opinion. You may move it into the "Fact" category. It is. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 3, 2017 17:08:40 GMT -6
Hi Fred
I trust you are well
You may move it into the "Fact" category. It is Benteen did not have the information to make such a call. Not only was it deviating from orders it was abandoning the mission. Nor did he try to communicate with Custer that he had withdrawn 5 companies from the mission. For all Benteen knew Custer might have initiated a operation [such as fordD] which would spell disaster if Benteen did not arrive.
Take care Richard
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 3, 2017 17:27:15 GMT -6
Benteen can only be defended by applying extreme exceptions and facile excuses which when combined totally undermine credibility. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 3, 2017 19:12:36 GMT -6
Richard I am beginning to believe that your personal dislike of Benteen has clouded your understanding of this battle. You keep referring to Benteen having at his disposal a like sized force as Custer's then you state: "Nor did he try to communicate with Custer that he had withdrawn 5 companies from the mission. " When did Benteen ever have command of anything but his battalion of 3 companies? He was ordered to bring the packs but not take over command.
Reno was in command and Benteen was his second. Benteen certainly steadied the situation atop the bluffs but did not assume command from Reno. What 5 companies are you referring to? There were seven companies under Reno's command, his original battalion of 3--A, G andM--- plus Benteen's 3---D, H and K---and Company B under Captain McDougall.
I have endeavored to understand your position but can not support your argument. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 3, 2017 19:13:29 GMT -6
Fred I am so pleased to see you back and posting again. I miss your insights and comments. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 3, 2017 19:25:27 GMT -6
Fred, I am so pleased to see you back and posting again. I miss your insights and comments. Dave, I wander in from time to time, especially when I see some interesting new people. I just do not get involved in some of the back-and-forth any more. You all know my position and unless someone can challenge its various aspects with facts and data other than personal opinions and animosity toward various participants, I find no reason to get involved further or to bicker. And you know how I feel about unsupported opinions: you opened that can of worms some time ago. Remember? It is always nice to read what you post. Very best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by dave on Mar 3, 2017 19:51:18 GMT -6
Fred I am proud that I was able to share with you something that we both treasure, well spoken individuals sans emotion and honest. DC was the clssic example and he is truly missed by those who enjoyed learning. Regards Dave PS I am reading the Real Frederick Benteen thread for the 1st time and am learning quite a bit. I am believe Richard should reread it and see if his position might shift.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Mar 3, 2017 20:38:20 GMT -6
Hi Dave I am only interested in our heros as actors in a tragedy . I have no feelings for any of them one way or the other except perhaps for Keogh for sentimental reasons ...an enigma ...one of the Wild Geese. Nelson comes to mind when thinking of the issue of disobeying orders but he did so to engage the enemy. Benteen did so to avoid the enemy. I have listed the issues with Benteen's performance . My source is the RCOI and much of the evidence is provided by Benteen himself. In a basic military system you need command and control ,communication and an oath bound officer corps dedicated to mission. Benteen failed in every aspect of this system. He simply did not function for some considerable time. Now I have listed these failings and no one has refuted them.What has been done is to present excuses and exceptions with which to defend Benteen. AZ has even made a lenghty case against the need for communication. You say you cannot understand my reasoning ? I cannot understand how you, for example cannot understand how Benteen's failure to inform Custer that he had halted his battalion is criminal negligence. Would Custer have taken himself off to ford D if he had been informed that Benteen was not coming?
Bottom line Benteen's action was a bigger setback to the mission than Reno's defeat.
Benteen said at the RCOI that the packs were his responsibility.
The 5 companies I refere to are actually 4 plus 72 troopers.
And a question for you......How did halting at Reno hill support the mission?
Best Wishes Richard
|
|