|
Post by elkslayer on May 20, 2012 22:57:48 GMT -6
Tell your subordinates the plan? Sounds great, but that really isn't what the army is really about. You get your orders and obey them. You don't ask for rationale or reasons, you just do it.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 21, 2012 12:03:06 GMT -6
Tell your subordinates the plan? Sounds great, but that really isn't what the army is really about. You get your orders and obey them. You don't ask for rationale or reasons, you just do it. Jim Jim, I agree with you to a point. I believe this applies to a lower level. What I mean is a Captain certainly doesnt have to explain anything to a Cpl, he just gives orders and they are obeyed. But in this case I believe a Regimental Commander who knows he is going to divide is command should at least tell his battalion commanders what he is planning ,since there are no field radios , the only way to communicate is a messenger, so I think the other commanders should have some idea of whats going on, rather than be left in the dark. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2012 13:56:03 GMT -6
The part about obeying orders is correct. It is not a debating society, they are orders and must be carried out to the fullest extent possible, barring unforseen circumstance.
The part about not telling your subordinates the plan and your intentions is wrong, IF, you expect your subordinates to carry out your orders and intentions in the manner you desire them to be carried out.
Orders many times go by the wayside as the line of departure is crossed and first contact made. Intentions though remain, and the subordinate commander is expected to understand those intentions and modify orders received as required as long as those orders are in line with his commanders intent.
A wise commander always tells his subordinates why. You don't find that in the book. If you expect them to willingly obey though it helps, to first get them on your side in common cause. You are dealing with human beings and not pieces on a checker board.
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 21, 2012 18:07:56 GMT -6
The term we use for this is commander's intent. This term, and the doctrine and theory behind it, was reinvented in Western culture in the 1500s. It was part of the professionalization of Armies, forced by gunpowder.
So in 1876, this concept was three centuries old, and well understood. Go read the orders of Lee, Grant, Sherman, to see this in ACW. Not that everyone understood this, see Bragg, Braxton, and many more.
Does this concept matter? Your boss tells you how he intends to fight the enemy, then he lays out your specific actions to meet that goal.
As you maneuver, enemy does his own actions, which forces you to make decisions. You fall back on commander's intent to help you decide. You can't be a Ben Butler and sit on your butt, you have to react to the enemy.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 21, 2012 20:19:31 GMT -6
Does this concept matter? Your boss tells you how he intends to fight the enemy, then he lays out your specific actions to meet that goal. . Colonel Montrose, This is exactly what my point was, which Colonel Quincannon said alot better. Custer never told his other commanders what he planned. He left them in the dark.It bit him in the fanny. I dont know if Benteen would have done anything different but when he came to Reno and asked where was Custer, what was he doing, what were his plans, Reno had no answers. Yes I am bias against Custer but this was just another example how he was FUBAR at the Little Big Horn Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2012 2:38:40 GMT -6
This is the thing, if Custer had a plan it must have been a simple one, an order delivered by Lt. Cook was ‘’you (Maj. Reno) take your Battalion and attack the Village, you will be supported by the whole outfit, Reno complies, ‘’what whole outfit’’ there is a Battalion of men under Capt. Benteen off on a scout virtually out of the battle, Custer had to leave the pack train guarded because it was susceptible to attack, so one Company plus Troopers packers had to escort the dam thing.
I think Custer fought the last stage of this battle on the hoof, I wonder how much he told Capt. Keogh of his motives (except for stay here and wait for Benteen) when they left him and his wing on Calhoun hill. Ian.
|
|
|
Post by ulan on May 22, 2012 3:40:29 GMT -6
I didn´t found so far what order exactly Custer given to Benteen when he let him marching to the left for reconnaissance.
But wasn´t it the same here? Custer did not involve Benteen in his plans but instead he sending him away without exactly oders like for eg:"Recon the area about 5 miles to the left and if you find nothing come back to the regiment. Reno get order to attack the village frontal and i attack from the right side."
Actually Benteen had no idea what exactly both other battalions are doing.
If you plan a attack with three coordinated fighting groups, than you have to coordinate these groups. Custer leave both of his most important officers uninformed. That was a gambling but not responsible military action.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on May 22, 2012 4:47:36 GMT -6
Hi Ulan, the orders given to Capt. Benteen ''pitch (attack) into anything you come across'' I think.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 22, 2012 6:58:44 GMT -6
Seems that would be a given to pitch into any Indians discovered as compared to letting them run off.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2012 7:15:13 GMT -6
AZ There are other alternatives to pitching in. It was pitching in which brought on the Battle of Gettysburg with disasterous results for the" pitcherins". Regards
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 22, 2012 7:25:35 GMT -6
Agreed when fighting in the CW. In this case the Indians dictate your alternatives. They can run or they can take the fight to you. Very seldom do they sit in the village waiting to see what happens. Is there any example where they defend a village by remaining in it?
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2012 7:36:22 GMT -6
If there is a village they are not going anywhere. You can withdraw and send word to Custer if you consider that they are too strong for your force. But regardless of what action you take word must be sent to Custer.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 8:51:28 GMT -6
Richard: Again I would disagree about pitching in at Gettysburg. The pitching in so to speak was on the first day and the results of the first day were two army corps and a cavalry division being driven from the field. The disaster was caused by the Confereates staying and not continuing to maneuver or going back behind the Blue Ridge and waiting for the Union to come to them. I see no relevance here. None at all.
|
|
|
Post by wild on May 22, 2012 9:23:25 GMT -6
Colonel The relevance is that Lee did not want a gereral engagement brought on until all his troops were up.Hill against his commander's wishes pitched in thus committing Lee to an offensive battle rather than the kind of action which stood the Confederates in good sted to wit offensive defence. The confederates went off half cocked as Benteen would have had he pitched in.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 22, 2012 9:56:21 GMT -6
Richard that is all true as to what Lee wanted. Cannot dispute that, but nothing at the end of the first day kept him from doing just that. He won that battle. Had he maneuvered or withdrawn he could have easily set up a battle such as you describe. He did not and that was the fatal mistake at Gettysburg, not the pitching in. Lee was concentrating much faster than the AoP on 1 July. He had those two corps cold. The evening of the first day and on into the second the AoP made up for its deficiencies in concentration, and the odds became even. Bad show.
|
|