|
Post by quincannon on Apr 29, 2013 18:51:26 GMT -6
Fred: I once relieved an officer for gross incompetence on the range. His error was calculating a firing solution that caused fall of shot to be several hundred meters from where it should have fallen and as a consequence placed the Observation Post party in mortal danger.
My brigade commander called me to his side and reminded me that this officer was a West Point graduate, and my actions would ruin his career. He went on to ask who I proposed to replace him. I told him that he had been temporarily replaced by the senior NCO in the fire direction center. His answer to me was surely any officer is better than no officer. To which I replied No General it is not. Either my relief of him stands or relieve me. I excused myself from his presence, walked off and remained in command almost another year.
Generals are not always right, but they are generals, and must be respected. In the same light though they pull on their pants one leg at a time like we all do. They make mistakes, and as Montrose points out Custer was an incompetent officer in the same way that FSO of mine was incompetent. These were not Custer's first gross errors of judgment, nor were they the FSO Captain's. The difference was when the incompetence reared its head before I was not the commander. This time I was, and did what should have been done long before despite this man's West Point pedigree.
The United States Army would have been done a great favor had Custer taken a round square between the eyes at First Bull Run, and a lot of men that died needlessly at his hand, would have lived to grow old like you an I and enjoy our grandchildren. He would have then taken his place among the honored dead, and a lot of better men would have lived.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Apr 29, 2013 20:10:37 GMT -6
Remember something, gentlemen, when it comes to these orders. First of all, they were issued by a general and regardless of Custer's former rank, the brevet business, and his time in service, a general is a general. Some how, some way, their orders always seemed to me to carry more weight than any others. Terry's inclusion of the phrase regarding his belief the Indians were on the LBH precludes any discretion given, and that discretion pertained only to Custer's actions once he had reached the top of the Rosebud and the top of the LBH-- if he saw fit! More importantly, however, is Custer knew Terry's intentions! And while there was a lot of CYA after the debacle, history tells us Custer acted against those intentions. To me, that is the condemnation. One other thing... when you assess Custer's tactics once beyond the divide, you must assess them in relation to Terry's orders and his intent. By itself, the tactics employed were not unsound, though they got completely out of hand. When combined with Terry's intentions, Custer's tactics were a complete disaster. Best wishes, Fred. Captain Fred, Aw, darn Capt, that is exactly what I was going to say next, word for word ;D Be Well Dan
|
|
jag
Full Member
Caption: IRAQI PHOTO'S -- (arrow to gun port) LOOK HERE -- SMILE -- WAIT FOR -- FLASH
Posts: 245
|
Post by jag on Apr 29, 2013 20:31:00 GMT -6
Dan: I, like AK have no desire to get into Terry's orders. They are what they are and not likely to change. What I will do is tell you what I believe about a license to steal and courtesy. Writing an order is an art form. If you have a subordinate that you really trust, that order will contain language giving that subordinate a maximum of leeway in the performance of the duty you wish him to do. If you have a lesser degree of trust and confidence in another subordinate, the language used will be much more restrictive. A good example of the former would be Marshalls to Eisenhower "You will enter upon the Continent of Europe and destroy the German Army" Had Marshall had a lesser degree of confidence, that LOI to Eisenhower might just have added how to do it, where exactly to do it, and what sequence to do it in. I like this one, specially that last sentence. Might be wrong, but don't think so because Custer did seem intent on micromanaging Benteen's scout. pg 381 Q. Please repeat the order which General Custer gave you when you left with your column to go to the left. [How to do it] & [exactly where to do it] A. He told me, pointing to a line of bluffs, to go to that line of bluffs; or at first to send an officer with 5 or 6 men to ride rapidly to that line of bluffs. I was to follow with the battalion; he was simply the advance guard, and if I came across anything before I got to that line of bluffs, to pitch into them and send word back to him at once; then an order came to me by the Chief Trumpeter that if I found nothing at the first line of bluffs, to go to the second line, and I was supposed to carry out the pitching in business and the reporting to him; then the Sergt. Maj. brought the order about valley hunting; to go to the first valley and if there were no Indians in the first valley, to go on to the second valley. I supposed the "reporting" and "pitching in" were sequences. [And what sequence to do it in.]
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 29, 2013 20:39:21 GMT -6
JAG: I think the specificity of sending the officer and a few men ahead was a case of micromanagement. The other parts though more a telling of mission and mission change. not how he was to do it but what he was to do. That's how I read it but, I am not that familiar with Custer's normal troop leading methods and the manner in which he issued orders to go beyond that. I can very well see though why it could be taken the other way.
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 29, 2013 21:38:53 GMT -6
Fred, I see you were typing a post the same time I was and we were both thinking the same about Custer making plans on the fly. He made the batallion assignments on the march and constantly had messengers going out.
Just like Reno and Benteen, I put no blame on Custer either. He committed to an attack and hoped they would run. They didn't and unlike Reno with a river nearby, he was surrounded and the NAs kept flanking him the way they do until they surrounded him.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 29, 2013 22:15:32 GMT -6
Britt: That really surprises me. It really does. Are you really saying that Custer, as the commander, was not responsible for what happened, and the blame should not fall on his shoulders. Did your battalion commander make PLANS on the fly, or did he issue clear concise orders the modify them with brief, direct, and clearly understood fragmentary orders when situations changed and plans needed to be modified? Why should you give Custer a pass? I really would like to hear your though process behind this statement.
Let me put it another way. Lets say everything happened just as it did, except, Custer was the only man of his immediate command to survive through some strange circumstance. Charges were filed against him for gross negligence, and several others. Would you prefer to be the Staff Judge Advocate at that trial or the lawyer defending him?
|
|
|
Post by bc on Apr 29, 2013 23:22:10 GMT -6
Chuck, I'm not saying anything about responsibility or blame either. Those are separate issues. I'm just saying that given the military mindset prevalent at the time that he didn't do anything as the regimental commander that wasn't militarily justifiable conduct for the times based upon what he knew he was facing at the time based on the tactics used at that time. Now there certainly was a time when he was being surrounded that he regretted his decision but on the other hand, if the NAs had run then there would have been nothing to regret.
Same goes for Reno. He did what he could in face of the odds he was facing and everything except for the way the retreat was handled was militarily acceptable based on the tactics in use at the time.
Same for Benteen. He moved ahead at a militarily acceptable speed even there are those who think he should have gone faster and the delays on Reno Hill before going to Weir point attributable to him and Reno were also militarily acceptable at the time.
To put it another way, I don't think Custer, Reno, or Benteen did anything that would justify a court martial conviction for a gross dereliction of duty. There were plenty of officers reviewing what happened at the time but no one was talking about referring charges and no one was asking for a board of inquiry either until Reno finally asked for one two years later.
I don't blame someone for winning a battle and likewise, I don't blame someone for losing a battle absent a gross dereliction of duty. We could do this same exercise for a thousand civil war battles and I'm sure there are some where we would find a dereliction of duty. However, the same tactics used in a losing battle could be the same tactics used in a winning battle but for ... the grace of God among other things. Sometimes it just a matter of wills and who breaks first.
I don't blame Kimmel and Short for what happened at Pearl Harbor and I don't blame Rommel for what happened in North Africa. I don't blame Eisenhower for what happened to the 1st and 29th divisions at Omaha Beach or what happened to the 101st at Bastogne. I do reserve a knock against Montgomery for Arnhem however. They all do ultimately "share" in the responsibility for everything that happened just like Custer, Reno, Benteen, Terry, Sheridan, Grant, Congress, and a few thousand NAs share in the responsibility of LBH whether it be good or bad.
Finally, Custer was a risk taker from day one of his career and everybody knew it, everybody condoned it, and everybody wanted him leading an attack on NAs. It could have been Crook's cavalry commander if they would have caught the vill in similar circumstances. He may have done something different. Merritt may have done something different if he would have been in charge. There are a number of different commanders who would have done differently and a number of different tactics that could have been used, but in the end they all still likely would have been militarily justifiable at the time. In this case, Custer was just being Custer doing what Custer does. I don't blame him for that.
bc
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2013 1:33:06 GMT -6
That is an interesting point of view. I believe I know what you are saying that responsibility and blame are different and I agree. There is a point of crossover theough and perhaps we can explore it more in the near future.
I also call you attention to the case of Admiral John Byng.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 30, 2013 8:22:05 GMT -6
Good afternoon everyone.
Going on what Jag posted concerning Custer micromanaging Benteen, Custer seems to be a little nervous over his left flank, first off he orders Benteen to the line of bluffs, he then sends Voss with a new order and later sends Sharrow with more orders, he seems to have some concerns regarding this flank, it was a pity that both Custer and Reno never made such an attempt to stay in touch, Reno had two couriers and I am hope I am right by saying he sent them both together, after that there was no contact between the two battalions, or none that we know of.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2013 8:29:04 GMT -6
Ian: You bring up something of interest. I wonder if we would know more about what happened to Custer, if Custer had chosen Sharrow or Voss to go to Benteen with the Big Village note. I am sure neither one of those men would have been considered for the job at that critical time owing to their positions, but still it makes one wonder would we know more.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Apr 30, 2013 8:33:12 GMT -6
To put it another way, I don't think Custer, Reno, or Benteen did anything that would justify a court martial conviction for a gross dereliction of duty. I'll set aside the issue of whether or not Custer followed Terry's orders and look only at the tactical decisions Custer made. I don't think a court-martial decision is appropriate for what happened. Simply relieving him of command would suffice. Custer didn't do anything criminal, he just made bad decisions as it turned out. Poor commanders aren't court-martialed, they are assigned a desk in some obscure backwater. My guess is that folks just wanted this thing to go away. Had it not been for Whittaker and Libby Custer, it may well have. Very true at times. And at other times, people screw up and are deserving of having the finger of fate pointed in their direction. Now that situation probably has as much debated, argued, and written about it as LBH. I'm not sure history will ever see a final reckoning of the events of that day. Interesting that you mention this. Market Garden had some parallels with LBH...commander personality, failure of reconnaisance, etc. For Custer, Ford D may have been his bridge too far. I was stationed at Soesterberg in Holland in 1974, about the time when the book was written, and the subject was still very much on the locals' minds. On a nice day, the base radar controllers (who were Dutch) would vector us around the area and point out the places where the battle took place. I do. But even more to the point, I blame Terry. In my view, I believe Terry held the opinion of Custer that you said so well. Custer was Terry's loose cannon and it went off in his face. Terry was the adult in the house and he knew better. Had the aftermath been handled in a more responsible and fair manner, I would have put Terry on the hot seat. He didn't create that junkyard dog, but he certainly gave it far too much leash...if any at all.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2013 8:44:11 GMT -6
AK: Dereliction of duty is a chargeable offense under both the Articles of War and UCMJ. I believe had a court of inquiry been held, or a modern Article 32 investigation conducted there would be more than ample justification to bring Custer before a court. The dereliction charge would also have led I believe to lesser, but still very serious charges as well. It's not criminal on the order of robbing a 7-11, but criminal enough to get you thrown in the slammer.
Look at the charges brought against Major General Fitz John Porter. Same type of thing, and they cashiered the man. In his case the verdict was later overturned nearly 20 years later, he was restored to his permanent rank of Colonel and retired I think the next day.
I do think if such a court was conviened, and a guilty verdict reached, the most probable sentence would be dismissal, and forfeiture.
No I don't think we would have knelt him before a firing squad like Admiral Byng and shot him for not doing his utmost.
|
|
|
Post by alfakilo on Apr 30, 2013 9:05:00 GMT -6
Dereliction of duty is a chargeable offense under both the Articles of War and UCMJ. I believe had a court of inquiry been held, or a modern Article 32 investigation conducted there would be more than ample justification to bring Custer before a court. Two things first. I'm most certainly not in the "let's go easy on George" camp...and I'm no lawyer. But, having said that, what exactly do you think Custer did that would qualify as 'dereliction of duty' (other than the charge that he willfully disobeyed Terry's order...but that is not the point here)? I do realize that, given the political aftermath of the battle and the tenor of the times, Custer may well have found himself the ham sandwich under indictment...I'm just not convinced that his actions rose to the level of dereliction. AK
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 30, 2013 9:18:30 GMT -6
AK: It is only a personal opinion, but I think the charges would be the same as or similar to those brought against Porter, a screw up, and in this instance the screw up embarrassed his commander Pope. Now Porter did not screw up. He told Pope what was in front of him for an entire day, Longstreet's Corps ANV, and he engaged them lightly but could not hope to be successful with his smaller force. In other words he refused to waste lives in a futile attempt for no possible gain. Pope did not believe him and moved him from that position to make an attack on Jackson's right on 30 August 62. Longstreet waited for that attack to culminate, and fritter away, then struck, just where Porter had said he would strike. Custer's was almost the exact reversal of Porter.
I do not think that a person should be brought before a court for losing a battle. That should normally be in the arena of losing trust and confidence to command if any action is taken at all. Court related actions in regard to battle failure should only be in extreme cases, and I think this to be one. Still I am open to those who may disagree. If you, and Britt do not think this rises to that level, then I am not going to impose my judgment on your opinion. Does not make much sense to do so.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 30, 2013 9:57:58 GMT -6
I feel for Monty over operation Market Garden, he was always being regarded as a cautious commander, but MG was a bold stroke, if it had come off it would have been a great success, it was just Monty’s luck that the II SS Panzer Corps were refitting in the area at the time, don’t forget this was late in the war and the allies had compete air superiority, so much so that anything that moved got hit, so Monty would have thought that this operation (be it a risk to try and push everything up one main road) would come off.
It was an 80% success though, but it as it turned out it was ‘’a bridge too far’’.
Ian.
|
|