|
Post by Colt45 on Dec 30, 2018 15:55:43 GMT -6
What the TO&E lays out as requirements for rank regarding company, battalion, brigade, division command, etc. is one thing. What you have available in the field is quite another. Custer only had 1 major with him, so senior captains would be used in place of majors as battalion commanders, with lieutenants taking over company command. This is what we see with LBH.
In combat, you wind up with all sorts of ranks holding positions they are not authorized by TO&E to hold. This holds true even in non-combat positions. It is a matter of filling positions with what is available, regardless of actual rank vs authorized rank. When I was a platoon leader, I had platoon sergeants that were less than SFC, which was the authorized rank for platoon sergeant, and tank commanders of E-5 and less, even though that position was authorized an E-6. As a 2nd LT, my position of platoon leader was authorized a first LT, so even I was in a position that was authorized a higher rank.
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 30, 2018 16:33:48 GMT -6
I have an understanding of the 7th Cavalry from its creation until Little Bighorn, as follows. Whilst a number of the cavalry regiments operated three four company battalions with a major available to command each; the 7th Cavalry did not and was structured as four battalions of three companies each. This was not an adhoc arrangement but the formal administrative regime of that regiment. Whether it was Sturgis or Custer who so organised this arrangement is unknown to me but I am sure that someone somewhere knows this. The four battalions were assigned to wings of two battalions each.
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 30, 2018 18:46:03 GMT -6
Herosrest If the battalion was a formal formation it would ,just as the companies had, a formal designation with permanent CO No such identifiers exist and as in the case of Reno , none of the officer corps commanded an existing battalion.And of course no battalions existed on the march in. Cheers Richard
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Dec 31, 2018 14:06:37 GMT -6
You consider that battalions were informal arrangements. There were 12 companies and a regiment. Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by wild on Dec 31, 2018 16:28:45 GMT -6
Yes .Having formal battalions limited flexibility.Having 12 companies allowed vastly more and different strenght configurations. Cheers Richard
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 1, 2019 9:13:25 GMT -6
Summing up my thoughts on your info - There could be up to six two company battalions to do a job requiring more than one company. A battalion could consist of two, three, or four companies.
There could be six two company battalions and any constituency of company's in battalions.
One formula is two, two company battalions, one three company battalion and one of four companies with one company on company duty. That is possible. Also all twelve companies could be employed individually on Montana mayhem.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 1, 2019 9:46:29 GMT -6
[/font] digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/History/History-idx?type=goto&id=History.Reno&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=183[/quote] Dan
Which version of the RCOI of are you quoting from? This could be interesting if they differ this much.
Steve,
My book is The Reno Court Of Inquiry (Abstract of the Official Record of proceedings) by Col W.A. Graham
Be Well Dan
[/quote] Dan That's the problem. Graham added to and left out parts of the RCOI. You quote Graham correctly but his source is not the RCOI, Graham took liberties of what he added to or removed from the RCOI. In the online version or the full version by Nichols is complete and similar to what you expect of a court transcript. Moylan never testified at the RCOI to what Graham has on page 68. The first paragraph under CAPT. MYLES MOYLAN, is most likely from the letter he wrote in early July 1876. Graham was trying to put the witnesses in a narrative form rather than the questions and answers of a court proceeding which is online or in Nichols. Grahman failed his readers by not footnoting inserts such as the first paragraph that you were using on page 68. We have enough things to discuss that are controversial without Graham adding to the problem. The first hint is that letter paragraph added to Moylan it states the battalion assignments were made during the morning. Yet the last sentences on page 68 states: "The separation was made into battalions, a mile or so the other side of the divide. It was about 12:30. " We Marines know that morning is not after 12. Cavalry because of the horses would be up early and 12:30 would be 6-7 hours after they got up and hardly morning. Graham did produce 125 copies of the RCOI but the abstract version on the dust cover states Graham sometimes paraphrased rather than quoted the RCOI. In Grahams book Wallace states that Benteen and Reno had battalions and Custer took the 5 companies with him. Happy New Year Semper Fi Steve
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 1, 2019 9:51:33 GMT -6
Summing up my thoughts on your info - There could be up to six two company battalions to do a job requiring more than one company. A battalion could consist of two, three, or four companies. There could be six two company battalions and any constituency of company's in battalions. One formula is two, two company battalions, one three company battalion and one of four companies with one company on company duty. That is possible. Also all twelve companies could be employed individually on Montana mayhem. The 1865 manual states not more than seven. So seven companies would still be considered a battalion. If you look at the actual formation of a full regiment illustration it has the Col in front followed by three Majors who are centered on four companies each. The Lt. Col is in the rear. There is no particular formula other than more than one company and less than eight companies. Regards BE
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 1, 2019 13:57:20 GMT -6
Steve,
Well done my brother leatherneck. Of course I am disappointed, I felt that rather than weak evidence, the testimony of 2 Officers saying they were present when Custer made his
Battalion assignments was strong evidence. However since they didn't say this at the RCOI then it is no evidence at all. I stand corrected It would seem that Col Graham may have a
little Steven Ambrose in him. Keep up the good work.
Semper Fi
Happy new Year to you and your family and to all the forum members
Be Well Dan
PS...What is the exact title of your RCOI so I can try to get a copy. I use it a lot since it is the testimony of men that were there, and I dont want to mislead anyone
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 1, 2019 17:22:49 GMT -6
Dan
My hard copy is
RENO COURT OF INQUIRY IN THE CASE OF MAJOR MARCUS A. RENO
Compiled and Edited by Ronald H. Nichols
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by wild on Jan 1, 2019 18:06:01 GMT -6
Many happy returns Dan Best Regards Richard
|
|
|
Post by herosrest on Jan 2, 2019 6:19:13 GMT -6
Summing up my thoughts on your info - There could be up to six two company battalions to do a job requiring more than one company. A battalion could consist of two, three, or four companies. There could be six two company battalions and any constituency of company's in battalions. One formula is two, two company battalions, one three company battalion and one of four companies with one company on company duty. That is possible. Also all twelve companies could be employed individually on Montana mayhem. The 1865 manual states not more than seven. So seven companies would still be considered a battalion. If you look at the actual formation of a full regiment illustration it has the Col in front followed by three Majors who are centered on four companies each. The Lt. Col is in the rear. There is no particular formula other than more than one company and less than eight companies. Regards BE Well, we got there. Four battalions, one Colonel. A Lt. Colonel and three majors. At last.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jan 2, 2019 15:34:44 GMT -6
The 1865 manual states not more than seven. So seven companies would still be considered a battalion. If you look at the actual formation of a full regiment illustration it has the Col in front followed by three Majors who are centered on four companies each. The Lt. Col is in the rear. There is no particular formula other than more than one company and less than eight companies. Regards BE Well, we got there. Four battalions, one Colonel. A Lt. Colonel and three majors. At last. Have no clue what you mean. Three majors if the regiment is split like the formation would each have 4 companies. Since at the time it was a temporary designation a battalion would still be anything from two to seven companies. There are lots of opinions of what Custer did with the 5 companies but zero proof. I read recently in Graham's book that Custer kept all 5 companies. The problem is that I believe the opinion of the forming of a Keogh battalion is used to denigrate him. He was a good soldier and without being a battalion commander things change in his favor. Regards BE
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 2, 2019 16:03:21 GMT -6
The 3 3 company battalions had a common command structure. Firsst company senior officer , second company captain, third company Lt. Keogh fits this pattern thus supporting the contention that he had a battalion. Yates was part of HQ arrangement. If Yates was part of HQ , why was his company divergent, are you saying GAC was an acting Brigade commander? I love you Richard, but the above is blather. I'm glad Dan gave you a thumbs up.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 2, 2019 16:06:55 GMT -6
Most of the officers of the 7th who fought in the civil war held brevet ranks. These were temporary ranks but substantive ranks as long as the hostilities lasted. After the war the army was greatly reduced .This ment that officers wishing to remain in the forces returned to their prewar ranks. I think Custer was a brevet major general and he was given the permanent rank of Lt Col. Keogh was a Lt Col and was appointed to the permanent rank of captain .Same goes for Benteen and Weir. GAC was reduced to captain after Texas, after he turned down the Colonelcy of a Black Regiment, and was only saved by Sheridan.
Regards, Tom
|
|