|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 14:50:08 GMT -6
no general ordered it. General Custer ordered it. ... There may be some confusion on my part on what consititues a General Order and an general order from the CO. AZ Ranger Aye...the "General and Special" orders of today's armies are not what we are talking about here...the G.O.'s of that day were much different things, and used differently. Custer was an acting regimental commander, and a Lieutenant Colonel, in the scheme of things. He was certainly not a "General Officer." He was, and died, a field grade officer in the Regular Army. He had the same influence on Soldier and company training as battalion commanders of today have. But again, the most important training we are talking about there, the "basic training" kind of stuff in discipline, marksmanship, horsemanship, and maintenance of all, is company level NCO business. So THAT is where you need to look to judge if these men are adequately trained, or not. Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 14:59:02 GMT -6
Which is it either the officers passed on training or nobody cared what they did or thought? AZ Ranger Sometimes they did, and sometimes they didn't. Officer training is a separate issue from Soldier training, and it occurred out on the Plains as well. I would expect that an LT or company commander would teach these skills to their NCOs and Soldiers, but it is entirely possible that they didn't. Whether they did, or did not, though, is unlikely to be found in any General Order. <g> I had a classmate that was an excellent fencer, but I don't think he taught any of it to his first tank platoon. <g> I, myself, am a decent equestrian, and if I were a company commander in the 1870s, I certainly would have taught horsemanship to NCOs that needed it (most would not, being Old Soldiers already), and I would have watched the NCOs sometimes instruct their newer Soldiers to ensure that their instruction was effective. After all, my cavalry troop would be in competition with any others stationed at my post, or nearby, and I'd want to beat them every time in drill and marksmanship and sports and appearance and equipment readiness and horse health, et al.... Clair |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 15:13:50 GMT -6
Too much training? 2nd U.S. Cavalry, 1855, on the plains...
"Under Hardee's tutelage, officers and their indispensable sergeants worked hard breaking in recruits and their horses. Hardee enjoyed instructing soldiers, so he also conducted officers' drill. He taught them the manual of the saber and carbine as well as tactical lessons. From reveille to tattoo the officers were either conducting drill or receiving schooling themselves. It was a superb opportunity for these young officers to learn from the nation's foremost drill officer. Drill could and did instill the habits of discipline. But officers and troopers alike were to find that it was of little value in combat because once men were in the midst of a running fight with Indians, each trooper generally became his own commander."
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 15:18:24 GMT -6
Most of the regiment's patrols went out with little expectation of meeting hostile Indians. But the officers believed that patrolling was useful to instruct the men in field service. -- Jeff Davis's Own by Arnold
Here is a good question for some of you sleuths...out on patrol, if the unit expended ammunition, did it count against their "training allotment?"
So if the men were out hunting on patrol, or just claimed that they saw some Warriors on a ridge and fired on them, when really they just wanted practice firing their weapons, did that count against their training draw?
Normally units would have an operational allotment of ammo, and a training allotment. So if you needed more ammo to train with, all you needed to do was find reasons to claim ammo used against the "operational account," and save your training account.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 15:25:55 GMT -6
1855, Regular Army on the plains...
Each drill session lasted one to two hours. As a senior inspector observed, the officers attended to drill conscientiously because they, in this case Captains Stoneman and Charles Whiting, 'were ambitious to advance their companies.' Occasionally the drill included target practice. Some notion of the troopers' marksmanship is suggested by their ability to hit targets a hundred yards away on the drill field...Target practice with the Colt revolvers consisted of riding around a post and discharging the weapon at close range. - Jeff Davis's Own by Arnold
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 19, 2008 17:23:03 GMT -6
no general ordered it. General Custer ordered it. ... There may be some confusion on my part on what constitutes a General Order and an general order from the CO. AZ Ranger Aye...the "General and Special" orders of today's armies are not what we are talking about here...the G.O.'s of that day were much different things, and used differently. Custer was an acting regimental commander, and a Lieutenant Colonel, in the scheme of things. He was certainly not a "General Officer." He was, and died, a field grade officer in the Regular Army. He had the same influence on Soldier and company training as battalion commanders of today have. But again, the most important training we are talking about there, the "basic training" kind of stuff in discipline, marksmanship, horsemanship, and maintenance of all, is company level NCO business. So THAT is where you need to look to judge if these men are adequately trained, or not. Clair In order for you to be correct there would have to be 3 types of General orders. Two of which do not take a General to issue but could be issued other ranks. What General order would have been issued by Generals only in the 1870s? So have read General Orders and the NEVER is not exactly correct? AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 19, 2008 17:30:45 GMT -6
Which is it either the officers passed on training or nobody cared what they did or thought? AZ Ranger Sometimes they did, and sometimes they didn't. Officer training is a separate issue from Soldier training, and it occurred out on the Plains as well. I would expect that an LT or company commander would teach these skills to their NCOs and Soldiers, but it is entirely possible that they didn't. Whether they did, or did not, though, is unlikely to be found in any General Order. <g> I had a classmate that was an excellent fencer, but I don't think he taught any of it to his first tank platoon. <g> I, myself, am a decent equestrian, and if I were a company commander in the 1870s, I certainly would have taught horsemanship to NCOs that needed it (most would not, being Old Soldiers already), and I would have watched the NCOs sometimes instruct their newer Soldiers to ensure that their instruction was effective. After all, my cavalry troop would be in competition with any others stationed at my post, or nearby, and I'd want to beat them every time in drill and marksmanship and sports and appearance and equipment readiness and horse health, et al.... Clair The General Order by Ord did not say who would perform the training only that it will be done including reporting results. So don't confuse the issue. Officer's did have a part of training and ultimately on the battlefield responsibility. I thought the 7th played baseball for fun. If a pop up hits you in the head is that indirect fire? AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Oct 19, 2008 17:45:06 GMT -6
This might be helpful to those who want their money back for conz's West Point years. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_orderI'm a civvy, a coward, 3rd grade education, etc. But what in that wiki is incorrect? If it's correct, conz didn't know what a general order was. Pretty simple, it seems. He'll compensate by capitalizing it from now on. |
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 19, 2008 17:57:05 GMT -6
1855, Regular Army on the plains... Each drill session lasted one to two hours. As a senior inspector observed, the officers attended to drill conscientiously because they, in this case Captains Stoneman and Charles Whiting, 'were ambitious to advance their companies.' Occasionally the drill included target practice. Some notion of the troopers' marksmanship is suggested by their ability to hit targets a hundred yards away on the drill field...Target practice with the Colt revolvers consisted of riding around a post and discharging the weapon at close range. - Jeff Davis's Own by Arnold Exactly training was better then than in the 1870's. Also Texas had the General Order that I referred to requiring training as did California. AZ Ranger |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 18:01:33 GMT -6
Again, I spent twenty years in uniform, 10 years on active duty in combat units of the U.S. Army.
And I've never read a "General Order," never heard of one except the old sentries "General and Special Orders," and never acted on one.
We don't use General Orders today like we did in the Old Army.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Oct 19, 2008 18:50:27 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Oct 19, 2008 18:52:16 GMT -6
My Dad had honorable discharge's from three branches of the U.S. military. When he was discharged from the Air Force, I'm almost sure it was listed in a General Orders,as I remember reading the order,which also included names of others being discharged.
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 19:43:22 GMT -6
That's cool, and maybe they are still out there somewhere, but neither I, nor anyone I ever knew or heard of, ever paid attention to any of them.
If an officer got courts-martialled for violating one, I'm sure it wasn't due to his not reading the general order. There would be regulations, or "rules of engagement," or other orders he would have read and violated. Maybe they traced back somewhere to some "General Order" in the records, but in my training, and on the walls of my orderly room, etc., I don't ever recall any "General Orders" there.
Certainly nothing like the G.O.'s you see in the Civil War era...those are just policies, regulations, and operations orders today. We wouldn't call anything like the examples you guys have cited as "General Orders" today...sorry.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 19:48:22 GMT -6
Out of one of Greg Urwin's cavalry histories:
Some imaginative and evious commanders were able to wrangle enough raounds to give their men enough experience with their carbines and pistols to render them combat ready. In the late fall of 1868, LTC George A. Custer put his 7th Cavalry through an intensive program to hone up its marksmanship. Each man was sent to the firing range twice a day. Excellence was encouraged by incorporating the forty best shots into an elite company of sharpshooters...
Col. Ranald S. Mackenzie was just as dedicated to promoting straight shooting in his 4th Cavalry, although he was not as inventive in devising incentives as Custer.
Seven years after the Civil War, the Army finally began providing each trooper with ninety shells a year to fire on a rifle range and directed that the men take part in drills for estimating distances. Seven years later, in 1879, soldiers were ordered to fire twenty practice rounds a month.
Clair
|
|
|
|
Post by conz on Oct 19, 2008 19:50:01 GMT -6
Exactly training was better then than in the 1870's. Also Texas had the General Order that I referred to requiring training as did California. AZ Ranger What makes you think that the Army in the 1850s was any different from the Army in the 1870s? Focus on the NCOs and officers...the rank and file don't matter. Clair |
|
