|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 14:14:41 GMT -6
Who was the leader of this so called ambush? What Indian planned for Custer to split his men? Where was the ambush located? Was it the chief that was in his sweat lodge as the battle started? Sitting Bull or Crazy Horse sure didn't plan for it. Crazy Horse wasn't even ready for the fight ....need to go home and put on his makeup. Ridiculous....Totally ridiculous.
If you don't get by now, you never will. Time to pass you bye.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 31, 2012 14:33:24 GMT -6
Gentlemen,
I believe one of the sticky points in our disagreements or better our difference of opinions revolves around what we believe command and control is. I dont state this as a fact but rather my opinion. To me command and control begins with a chain of command so everyone knows their place in the pecking order. Who has authority over who. In order to have C&C you must have authority. A Captain has the authority to give a lawful order to a Sgt and fully expect that order to be obeyed. From what I understand about Indian society, it was a free society, no one could order anyone around. They did not have the authority to do so. When you are a commander and you have to hope someone does what you think is best, you have no command and control.Only a wish. Again I dont state that as a fact but just my opinion
Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 15:12:03 GMT -6
And a damned good opinion it is Dan. Good on you.
Richard's post was the tipping point. I was going to take a nap this afternoon, if the cats and dog would allow me on their bed. I laid my head down and the proverbial light went on.
Some of these folks do not understand command and control. They just don't. No two ways about it. If you find this following of interest read on. If you don't shame on me.
When the first man, before the dawn of recorded history was given the AUTHORITY, by his tribe, village, people in his collection of huts or caves to exercise authority over others in battle, command began. Authority is the operative word. Authority to command, to compel obedience, to direct others with the force of whatever law existed at the time. That is command. Absent it there is no command. Reaching a mutual decision point is not command for authority is not present. A mob may have a leader. A mob does not have a commander. So without authority there is no command.
Just as you can not have an army without command, you cannot exercise that command without control. What army could exist with one commander out in front and five or ten thousand followers with no substrata of control. Why do you think there are squads, platoons, companies, battalions, regiments and brigades? Why do you think an army is echeloned top to bottom? Why do you think the organizations are documented and paper and conform generally one to the other? Why does every army that has ever existed from before that same dawn of history had persons specially detailed to provide communications. Why do most signal corps in the world have a torch, or signal flag, or lightning bolt as part of their corps insignia? Some even a quill pen (I forget which one that is)? All these things are the means of control.
To hear Richard tell it, some Bozo in a uniform walked up to Marconi one day and said buddy I think this radio thing is neat, I wonder if we have any possible use for it. We have been using these damned flags but you can't see very far using them. We also used these mirrors but the sun does not always shine. We used guys to carry messages but they often get killed and well you know. But this new fangled thing , what's it called again a radio? Spell that R A D I O, well maybe we can use it, just don't know if there is a need. We do have that Bell fellow trying to peddle us that thing he and Watson dreamed up. You know how these defense contractors are. Some guy is bitching that we don't buy as much wood for smoke signaling as we did back in the day. The flag makers are pissed off too because they say their product is the signal of distinction. What will these generals do next, sending me out here to track down every new fangled thing that they say might improve their ability to control on the battlefield. Why can't we just do it like that fellow Alexander did it back in the day? I just don't know.
So there is no command without the authority to command. There is no control without the organizational structure that makes control efficient, and without the means to exercise that control from the earliest attempts to cell phones and modern satelite communications.
Now please someone tell me that all three of these elements were present, in this form among the tribes that met Custer. Please tell me. Anything less is not command and control. It might be better than a mob. It might still be in the evolutionary developmental stages, but it is not command and control.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 15:44:36 GMT -6
What a bunch of bull crap I recall that Germany had such strict command and control that they were robots and were defeated by an army with command and control that allowed individual officers to make decisions. Command and control? What a waste of time. Just because you guys don't like the way Indians used their command and control does not mean it wasn't efficient enough for them. They just ran into opposition that had a far superior version of command and control. Please refresh my memory and tell me how many deserters there were in the 1870's army? Like it or not both have " warriors" willing to leave their so called command and control. Indians might not follow that leader any more , but they joined a different group and followed a new leader. The USA had punishment as a deterrent. To think for one second that Fetterman was defeated because of a wish is preposterous. There was organization and execution of a plan. Call it anything you want.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 15:49:18 GMT -6
Rosebud: With all due respect that is the most misinformed and off topic post I have seen here in many a year, and it does you no service.
Now if your purpose was to start another fight, try someone else. It serves no purpose to spar with you when you are in one of these moods where you issue statements that you are not willing to discuss with anyone. Your mind is made up. There is no changing the idea you have that you have achieved the state of perfect knowledge so it makes no sense to address this issue any more at this tiime or into the future.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 16:00:54 GMT -6
With all due respect......Explain the Fetterman fight and use no command and control for the Indians. You can't do it.
You have every right to discredit the Indians and their tactics. Just because you disagree does not mean they had no way to plan and to execute a plan.
I agree 100% that it was not very efficient. No I am not starting a fight. You are the one that gets in these moods near the end of the day. Sleep it off and you will be better in the morning, You usually are.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 16:17:17 GMT -6
I don't have to explain the Fetterman fight. Don't know all that much about it except he went for some reason where he was told not to go. Now he may have seen something that compelled him to act as he did, some change in circumstance.
Now you explain to me how the three elements I mentioned were present on the indian side of the Fetterman fight. It was an ambush. It was an ambush that was well executed, as many had been before. That does not change the basic elements of command and control.
A mob stormed the Bastille. In so doing they upset centuries of the divine right of kings. While they accomplished something that had never been done before, thay still did not have command and control. They had leadership to be sure, just as the indians had leadership at the Fetterman fight. Leadership is not the same as command and control. Read what I said again. You expect the commander to be a leader. You expect him to have leadership qualities. You see leadership in all walks of life. I would venture to say if you are a member of a stock raising organization that organization has a leader. If you are, can that leader compel you under force of law to do what he says? Probably not, so he is a leader and not a commander. There is a difference. A commander must be a leader, but a leader is not necessarily a commander.
To your earlier point about the German, and I expect you were talking about the American Army although you did not say so. I am not sure where you got you information, but the only thing that differentiated between the German execution of their command and control system and ours were the cultural differences between our countries. Other than that they are identical. In fact we based a lot of outr 20th century ideas on their command and control systems.
I have no ownership of these ideas and concepts. I am in the role of relating them to you. Should you care to find out, instead of assume, if I am full of crap or not you may research them for yourself. I tried to explain the C&C concept in laymans terms above. That's all. You are under no obligation to accept or embrace what I say, but there are a lot of people out there a lot smarter than either you or I who have written extensively on these very things, enough to fill libraries. I suggest if you are interested enough - get a library card.
PS: What ever gave you the idea I am discrediting the indians and their tactics. I am not at all. Some of the things they did were brilliant, others not so much. What I said was that they had no established system of command and control. Personal leadership of the warrior society of any other small group is not C&C. It is what it is - leadership. I believe their habit was to call tribal councils to discuss things of import, where all of the seniors and elders offered their opinion on the matter at hand, this of course on the tribal or confederation level. That is not command or control, it also is what it is collective decision making where the collective, not one person (the commander) decides. If I am in error about this you will correct me and I will stop watching so many John Ford movies.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Aug 31, 2012 16:23:35 GMT -6
With all due respect......Explain the Fetterman fight and use no command and control for the Indians. You can't do it. Rosebud, I am not trying to gang up on you. Your knowledge of Indians is far superior to mine. But I think the Fetterman fight is a good example of our difference of opinion on command and control. Where you believe it is an example of C&C I dont. I think it is an example of instinctual tactics. (If there is such a word). What I mean is an ambush is a tactic that warriors used often, to great success not only against the soldiers but other tribes. It was a drill everyone knew the drill you didnt need command and control. The warriors would hide and someone would draw them into the trap( In this case I believe it was Crazy Horse) and the warriors would pounce on them. Now if Fetterman wasnt drawn in and CH still wanted to get them, could he say I want you to cut off the "walk a heaps' the pony soldiers cant leave them, I want you to attack the fort so they cant send relief, I want you to do this etc, and have the authority to make them do it. That would be command and I dont believe he had it Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 17:01:44 GMT -6
Now if Fetterman wasnt drawn in and CH still wanted to get them, could he say I want you to cut off the "walk a heaps' the pony soldiers cant leave them, I want you to attack the fort so they cant send relief, I want you to do this etc, and have the authority to make them do it. That would be command and I dont believe he had it
Be Well Dan
You guys seem to think that I disagree 100% Not at all, In fact I agree with most of what both of you are trying to say.
Could Crazy horse order Indians to do as you say?....Probably....Except for one problem.....Even Crazy horse did not have the concept or knowledge to plan that sort of attack. Indian history, If you or I believe the story I can't agree or disagree states that Crazy Horse had trouble with his warriors when they tried to set up an ambush. Many times one or two warriors would make a dash for personal glory and ruin the ambush.
So Fetterman is a good example of Command....(by Crazy Horse) and Control (by the warriors) to pull off an ambush.
Now to me this is command and control although it is in its infancy. It was command and control at the highest level they had the capability to execute.
I do not see any way "instinct" would have them go to the fort in the winter to set up an ambush.
I hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 17:20:36 GMT -6
Again Rosebud with due respect due an emerging convert.
When those warriors were giving Crazy Horse a bad time with their antics, did Crazy Horse have the authority to place them under arrest, have them tried by a court for disobedience of orders, if found guilty stand them up against a wall and shoot them, or place them in the barred tipi for the rest of their natural lives? I am quite sure he did not. So once again we see on the part of Crazy Horse battle leadership with the absence of command authority.
Command - To direct with authority. To have control authority over. Rule. To exercise authority as a commander.
Leadership: The position or office of a leader. The capacity or ability to lead.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Aug 31, 2012 17:29:03 GMT -6
No. That is not Command and Control, which doesn't begin on battle day.
CC is not something your can install automatically like situational ethics. To pretend Indians somehow went to a command and control system is just like Bevo Boy implying the 7th could/would debut these fancy tactical formations in battle absent any evidence it would be constructive or any evidence they had ever trained in it and much evidence they were already violating the Peter Principle in many of the actions they probably did do.
It really is important to understand that there are things in a culture that prevent other things appearing in the culture. It's what made communism such a dud in the US and the west in general where social class movement was a given and encouraged and mythologized as was physical movement and land ownership, easy access to media and weapons, and little to prevent it should someone want to go somewhere else. Miners and industrial workers had every reason to think their kids would have it better here and that was an actual fairy tale in the Olde Country.
In a strictly striated society like Russia or China, it made more sense to peasants and the small middle class to just rename themselves workers, proletariat, dictators of proletariat . Sorta the same, sorta different, but certainly in a form they understood.
To go to a hierarchy of command in the tribes would be to destroy their culture and the way they related to everything. People would have to be assigned to what would be logistics: providing food to keep the warriors in the field.
The Dog Soldiers, who have the whiff of fluffed legend about them, were solely Cheyenne, and they'd have zero ability to order a Sioux to do squat. Of course, they'd have to give orders in sign, always noted for presizsion and speqjed of communakkkshun.
In the CW, Georgia wouldn't ship its tons of uniforms to other states' regiments, or food, or whatever. They were fighting for states' rights and in many ways they got what they wanted, absent the inevitable defeat.
In the Pacific War, the Americans didn't understand Bushido and all that and so were surprised by the ferocious defenses time after time. The Japanese could hardly cast aside millenniums of cultural instructions and retreat to fight again if they'd be eternally damned for not going down with the ship/plane. If they had our value of this life, they could have fought maybe another year of two to a draw but they sacrificed their pilots, soldiers, ships, and planes to melodramatic and pointless ends. But here's the thing: if they WERE like that, there never would have been a war because they wouldn't worship their pathetic Emperor or be that easily led off cliffs.
There are things that go together.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 17:41:27 GMT -6
Good point Quin
How about this for a question. Were the Indians stuck with a commander that was a complete a$$ hole? Never. They did not have a need to line them up and shoot them. They ALWAYS had a leader they trusted.
You might say they had a different requirement to be an officer.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 17:51:47 GMT -6
When I see the term NO command and control. I get the impression that that also makes the assumption that they have no ability to plan or execute any sort of attack.
Now If Command and Control only means they have no authority to give orders then by all means you guys are 100% correct. They do not have a HQ group sending warriors to complete a special task. Again....You are 100% correct.
But if it includes the notion they no longer have the ability to plan and execute then I will still disagree.
Rosebud
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Aug 31, 2012 17:56:10 GMT -6
And you also have a good point. Unfortunately our commisioned leaders are commissioned by act of Congress. That august body has been known to make a mistake or two over the past two hundred thirty odd years.
I used to see 1LT Calley from time to time at Fort Benning. He was there under house arrest for some time. He would be allowed the PX, medical, and other common things, under guard away from his residence, which has the odd name of some indian fighter I never heard of -Custer Terrace. I would think to myself how could we commission such a man as he. One of my basic course classmates was involved in that thing also. He was charged but not brought to trial, as he was on the fringes of the aftermath. Not sufficient evidence I suppose. When I saw his name in the newspapers though I was not surprised at all. We let bad ones through. Always have, for that is the price you must pay in a society such as ours. You try to weed them out. You try to eliminate them as plebes, or in the first year of ROTC or the early weeks of OCS, but bad leaders get through from time to time.Most of the seniors on the West Point football team were dismissed for honor code violations a few weeks before graduation in the early 1950's in time of war. They cheated, and then they lied about cheating. They were unsatisfactory potential leaders and were given their walking papers. On the other hand I have seen privates first class that were far supeior leaders to colonels and general officers I have known. One of those PFC's was an OCS flunk out for academics
Now the indians had no such problem, and for that, and for them at the time the act of choosing leaders, based upon already earned respect, and demonstrated ability was superior in many ways to any alternative. I think you could have taken a guy with the obvious attributes of a Crazy Horse, and with the obvious necesssities stipulated (language, training and the like) and he would have been an outstanding officer in any army on the planet
Rosebud, command and control is a structure. No one has ever said they did not have the ability to plan and execute. Command and control is for the orderly regulation and employment of an army. It is not about thought process. It is about regulation and governance.
|
|
|
Post by rosebud on Aug 31, 2012 18:39:27 GMT -6
Then I think we are on the same page and are in agreement. Command and control does not apply to the Indians. Their leadership was structured under different terms, and needs.
|
|