|
Post by fred on Feb 1, 2014 10:42:18 GMT -6
AZ Ranger,
If you do not mind, I would like to respond to a comment you made on the other boards. I am doing so here because I do not want to get into some sort of a brou-ha-ha with guys like "griffith," that clown, Joel, or the other guy Dave.
You stated, "It would be nice if some of the officers here discuss orders and what constitutes failure to obey an order. Circumstances change and I believe that U S officers are allowed to deviate for reason. They are to understand the mission and make the best available decisions. That sometimes includes what at first appears as disobeying an order. It would be nice if some of the officers here discuss orders and what constitutes failure to obey an order. Circumstances change and I believe that U S officers are allowed to deviate for reason. They are to understand the mission and make the best available decisions. That sometimes includes what at first appears as disobeying an order."
Now... I will defer to "montrose," "quincannon," and "alfakilo," all of whom were in the service longer than I was and all of whom out-ranked me, but this is what I was taught or would have done as a ground-pounder or company commander in Vietnam.
As a captain and company CO, my chain-of-command included the battalion XO, a major. If anything happened to the LTC/CO, that major would have assumed command. In my opinion, Marcus Reno was the titular XO of the Seventh Cavalry during that campaign, and regardless of whether or not he was assigned a separate battalion, those assignments were tactical only and could have changed as the situation warranted.
Benteen had a specific order... and let's forget for a moment it was a dichotomy of instructions. Once Benteen-- or, in this case, I reached Reno Hill, I was outranked immediately by the titular XO... to me, that means he was in charge. I showed him my orders, and asked him where the CO was. His response was he did not know. It would seem obvious to me that he was forward, but no one could be certain and there were issues at hand, issues needing immediate attention. Regardless, Reno was now in charge!, and it could not be established if my written orders were still applicable. The "dichotomy" presented me with a convenient choice: "hurry" or "packs," and in my case-- as it was with Benteen-- I could do both, once the overall command was re-organized and immediate priorities, i. e., wounded, taken care of. Once the packs were in sight and considered safe, I would then begin forward, but under Reno's command until it was established that Custer was within some sort of communication-range. Barring the latter-- as at the LBH-- Reno was in command and any perfunctory battalion organization was now set aside based on the now-current tactical needs.
Simply put, Benteen-- based on my timing studies-- did absolutely nothing wrong and acted in the manner the military would have required.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Feb 1, 2014 12:50:08 GMT -6
Simply put, Benteen-- based on my timing studies-- did absolutely nothing wrong and acted in the manner the military would have required. Best wishes, Fred. I like this thread. I also feel Benteen conducted himself correctly, but being only E-7, it sure would be above my grade. I have one question, off topic. If a non-com is busted, to private, how quickly can he be returned to grade(in time of war)? I will now sit back and learn, from your thread, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 1, 2014 13:44:49 GMT -6
The senior line officer present commands. In this situation with Custer out of the command picture by his absence Reno was the senior line officer present, and therefore in command.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 1, 2014 13:51:37 GMT -6
... but being only E-7, it sure would be above my grade. I have one question, off topic. If a non-com is busted, to private, how quickly can he be returned to grade(in time of war)? Tom, From my perspective, you never short-shrift an E-7. The best NCO I ever knew was an E-7. All you need to do is back it down in size. Instead of a 1960s battalion-- which is what I knew-- make it a 1960s infantry company. If memory serves me correctly, a TO&E infantry company in 1964, for example, was not authorized an XO-- correct, Chuck?-- but some did because at times we had an extra first looie or two. So-o-o... if the platoon leader was incapacitated, the platoon sergeant-- an E-7-- would take over. His command responsibilities would be no different and he would not be held to a different standard than his officer. As to your "busted" question, in time of war, they can do anything they want, especially in 1876. Today? I cannot answer. Chuck and "montrose," can, however. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 1, 2014 14:29:40 GMT -6
Fred: As far as I know the Executive Officer position has always been an authorized space in a rifle company, since at least World War II.
Just because that slot is filled in an organization though it does not mean that the person who fills that position is next senior lieutenant in the company. Most times that is the case, but there are exceptions. In the rifle company I was in as a brand new second lieutenant, the senior lieutenant was the weapons platoon leader, a first lieutenant, and all the rest were second lieutenants. When the company commander was not present the weapons platoon leader was in command. That may seem strange to some, maybe to many, but the weapons platoon leader, along with the attached artillery forward observer were charged with the coordination of fires, and usually that officer had a much better handle on the tactical situation. The executive officer, if he is doing his job, takes care of administration and logistics, assisted by the company first sergeant. If he is hanging around the CP a lot, that is a sure sign at least to me that his business is not being tended to.
This position vs. seniority among lieutenants is more often found in a headquarters company. In the old style headquarters companies where you had both combat AND functional logistical platoons most times these platoon leaders who in some cases functioned as special staff officers were your most senior lieutenants, really season people, and the XO was many times very junior to them.
In a rifle company, the company commander establishes the chain of command as he see fit. Most times the XO is senior but not always.
Calling Reno the XO would be foreign to the 1876 Army. I think it better to refer to Reno in this situation as both deputy commander, by virtue of rank, and battalion commander by virtue of position. In Custer's absence he commands the whole regardless of his other responsibility as a battalion commander. Reno would have had the option in this situation to exercise command over the whole while retaining his battalion, or he could exercise command over the whole and turn his battalion over to the next senior in that battalion. The latter is the way I would have done it. I think it is much more practical. He could also have opted to dissolve the existing structure, and reformat the task organization.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 1, 2014 16:16:47 GMT -6
That is kind of the way I remember it, Chuck. I wasn't sure, however-- or didn't remember, anyway-- if a TO&E rifle company under ROAD was authorized an XO. I don't remember us having one. I do remember, however, that the senior lieutenant was the weapons platoon leader. I also remember asking not to have that job when I was the senior first lieutenant in the company, several months before being transferred to NATO. I liked the rifle platoon. Besides, in the 3rd Infantry Division at that time, my tracks were numbered 111, 112, 113, and the weapons squad, 114. (The first number was the company, i. e. A = 1; B = 2; C = 3; second for the platoon; and third for the squad. So B's would be 211 for the first squad in the first platoon; 221 for the first squad in the second platoon, etc.) Ours were plain white numbers and the only ones of the kind in the division. If memory serves me correctly, every battalion was numbered with a slight twist and the 1/30th was considered the top battalion in the division. Others may have been numbered in a different color-- yellow, for example-- or with a bar on top or below, or some such variation, so that when you saw a straight 111 you knew it was my track.
At least that's how I seem to remember it. Again, if not mistaken when the 1/38th converted under ROAD, it became the 2/30th.
Since I was in two different companies, however, and seem to remember an XO in the first-- under ROCID (?)-- I cannot remember what we had under Joulwan and ROAD.
What you say makes sense, however.
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 1, 2014 16:59:13 GMT -6
Fred: Assignments of parent regiments to division they are most associated with has been pretty consistent since 1957
In World War I the 3rd Division had the 4th, 7th, 30th and 38th Infantry Regiments. The 2nd Division had since 1921 when the Marine Brigade was relieved of assignment to the division, the 1st, 9th, 20th and 23rd Infantry Regiments.This remained fairly constant until just before World War II. In 1939 the divisions started to be reorganized into the triangular configuration, and the 1st and 20th Infantry Regiments left the 2nd Division to form the basis of the then reactivating 6th Infantry Division. At the same time the 4th Infantry Regiment left the 3rd Division to become a separate RCT, and the 38th left as well to join the 2nd Division as its third regiment. The 15th Infantry was then returning from China and was assigned to the 3rd Division. Now all this sounds like complicated musical chairs, but it was done geographically. Divisions were rarely at one post.
When the Pentomic ROCID came along they tried to give units a connection with the past. The 1st Battle Groups were in most cases represented division elements that were with the division at the time ROCID came into effect The two remaining battle groups represented units that had been with the division previously, and typically were designated 2nd Battle Group.For the 3rd Division that meant:
1st Battle Group, 7th Infantry 1st Battle Group, 15th Infantry 1st Battle Group, 30th Infantry 2nd Battle Group, 4th Infantry 2nd Battle Group, 38th Infantry
When ROAD came along they tried to keep things pretty much the same as far as designations went, but under ROAD you will remember instead of being a standard configuration each division was tailored differently so it was not always possible. Initially under ROAD the 3rd Division had
1st Battalion, 4th Infantry 1st Battalion, 7th Infantry 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry 1st Battalion, 15th Infantry 2nd Battalion, 15th Infantry 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry
2nd Battle Group, 38th Infantry was reorganized and redesignated 2nd Battalion, 38th Infantry and transferred, less personnel and equipment to Fort Benning and the 2nd Infantry Dicision
|
|
|
Post by scottbono on Feb 1, 2014 18:27:37 GMT -6
AZ Ranger, If you do not mind, I would like to respond to a comment you made on the other boards. I am doing so here because I do not want to get into some sort of a brou-ha-ha with guys like "griffith," that clown, Joel, or the other guy Dave. You stated, "It would be nice if some of the officers here discuss orders and what constitutes failure to obey an order. Circumstances change and I believe that U S officers are allowed to deviate for reason. They are to understand the mission and make the best available decisions. That sometimes includes what at first appears as disobeying an order. It would be nice if some of the officers here discuss orders and what constitutes failure to obey an order. Circumstances change and I believe that U S officers are allowed to deviate for reason. They are to understand the mission and make the best available decisions. That sometimes includes what at first appears as disobeying an order." Now... I will defer to "montrose," "quincannon," and "alfakilo," all of whom were in the service longer than I was and all of whom out-ranked me, but this is what I was taught or would have done as a ground-pounder or company commander in Vietnam. As a captain and company CO, my chain-of-command included the battalion XO, a major. If anything happened to the LTC/CO, that major would have assumed command. In my opinion, Marcus Reno was the titular XO of the Seventh Cavalry during that campaign, and regardless of whether or not he was assigned a separate battalion, those assignments were tactical only and could have changed as the situation warranted. Benteen had a specific order... and let's forget for a moment it was a dichotomy of instructions. Once Benteen-- or, in this case, I reached Reno Hill, I was outranked immediately by the titular XO... to me, that means he was in charge. I showed him my orders, and asked him where the CO was. His response was he did not know. It would seem obvious to me that he was forward, but no one could be certain and there were issues at hand, issues needing immediate attention. Regardless, Reno was now in charge!, and it could not be established if my written orders were still applicable. The "dichotomy" presented me with a convenient choice: "hurry" or "packs," and in my case-- as it was with Benteen-- I could do both, once the overall command was re-organized and immediate priorities, i. e., wounded, taken care of. Once the packs were in sight and considered safe, I would then begin forward, but under Reno's command until it was established that Custer was within some sort of communication-range. Barring the latter-- as at the LBH-- Reno was in command and any perfunctory battalion organization was now set aside based on the now-current tactical needs. Simply put, Benteen-- based on my timing studies-- did absolutely nothing wrong and acted in the manner the military would have required. Best wishes, Fred. This answers one of those small, 'niggling' questions I have always had when reading or discussing the battle with folks. To my civilian way of understanding, Reno outranked Benteen and, while Benteen was responding to GAC's note, he had no real intelligence about the battlefield or the progress of the fight itself. Hence, when Benteen arrives at the hilltop and is faced with an obviously distraught Reno who says, essentially, "Help! I'm getting the snot kicked out of me and you must assist...". Neither officer is aware of Custer's location or involvement and, at least at that point, it is a Major speaking to a Captain. Benteen acts accordingly. I have often thought GAC's 'bring packs' message was vague under the circumstances. Lacking intelligence about the village, the geography and terrain (among others) it would seem Benteen acted 'normal'. I know there are accusations of intentional abandonment and of Benteen's hatred for Custer but it becomes difficult for me to believe a professional like Benteen would purposely abandon Custer along with 200+ cavalrymen. I read of Benteen's 'dawdling' and then recall the conditions of both horses and terrain features. I also believe events occurred so rapidly and spiraled beyond control so quickly, it may have been too late for Benteen anyway - whether his battalion would have been wiped out or not - there simply wasn't time to get to Custer. All of the above, of course, is in relief at discovering the professional military folks on this board validated my immediate conclusion, to wit: Benteen acted appropriately. Thank you very much. Scott
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 1, 2014 20:25:03 GMT -6
Scott: To be fair this was prompted by another board member in a telephone conversation I had with him today.
How do you know, based only on the written content of that note that Benteen joining Reno, on the bluffs or anywhere else was not exactly what Custer had in mind? Remember now, only on the content of the note, not anything else, not what you have heard expressed as opinion by others, not what you know in hindsight, nothing EXCEPT the content of the note alone.
When two or more reasonably intelligent people can differ on the content and meaning of a military communication, it is then a poorly conceived, constructed, and written military communication. If it does not contain who, what, when, where, and how, and if need be why, then it is about as useful as used toilet paper.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Feb 2, 2014 6:30:30 GMT -6
Fred
I understand why you wouldn't want to comment on the other board. I am beginning to understand a guy like Mike who spent a career in the Army. My feeling is that he doesn't have real life experience to draw from and it acts a hindrance. He can win the spelling bee and grammar check but he doesn't understand simple things like gun shots at several miles and how people hear.
On the other hand this seems so simple to me because of my experience. We have a range in Phoenix, Arizona called Ben Avery on a busy weekend there are more shooters there than would be troopers shooting on the Custer battlefield. If you drive to the other side of the hill from the range and less than 2 miles you can hear the sound but it is such a low level that if you are not stopped and trying to listen you can go on about your business and not recall hearing the shots.
What is funny is that in court you don't use your report to testify. You don't read it into the record. The county attorney prefers that you don't take it on the witness stand. When the defense wants to challenge you they may use your report against you but unlike what Mike thinks they don't first read the whole report into evidence. They ask specific questions regarding statements made to counter your testimony. If a sentence is different than what you have testified to they will point that out to the court.
So back to decision making by an officer. The question I asked was can a officer deviate from an order when circumstances change.
I think Chuck also points out that what constitutes the minimum composition of an order if lacking lead to confusion.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by montrose on Feb 2, 2014 7:35:51 GMT -6
Steve,
An officer's job is to make decisions. A common saying for company commanders are the decision point where you " bet your bars". You make a decision on your own authority, despite whatever orders are out there. It's a hero or zero moment.
Blindly obeying orders without regard for circumstances is a sign of incompetence. The other board regards the charge of the Light Brigade as an example of military genius, the defining example of the 'cavalry school' . At LBH they believe a charge of the mule brigade would lead to a decisive victory. Arrant nonsense from rank amateurs with no understanding of tactics or the dynamics of battle.
Just a reminder. LTC Custer was tried and convicted by court martial for gross negligence and gross incompetence in 1867. If had survived he would have been tried and convicted again in 1876. Did GAC know that Reno was fighting in the valley? If yes, why did Custer not ride to the sight and sounds of battle? Was Custer a coward, or simply incompetent?
William
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 2, 2014 9:47:14 GMT -6
Concur. We spend a considerable amount of time and money educating and training officers, both commissioned and noncommissioned to use judgment in situations where previously issued orders have been overcome by changing events, or to act in the absence of orders.
I was particularly stunned with a comment on the other board by a poster who offers the opinion that Benteen should have sacrificed himself to go to Custer's aid. I suppose that is OK from the comfort of an armchair, but had the poster been in a position to act, I wonder how he would have felt about his statement then?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Feb 2, 2014 12:21:14 GMT -6
I was particularly stunned with a comment on the other board by a poster who offers the opinion that Benteen should have sacrificed himself to go to Custer's aid. Which idiot was this? I am basically done over there. I just cannot deal with it any more. Billy and Steve both post over here, so I can still read their stuff, though I will certainly miss "tunkasila," Henk "hevat" (from the Netherlands, no less... my God, I wish I could speak any language as good as Henk speaks English!!!), and John Sickel (a JAG officer... or retired JAG officer). Other than those three, however, I cannot think of another person worth speaking to. Bill Rini and I can beat up one another when we meet-- and I have to tell you, Bill can take it, so no matter what you guys think of him, I have to say I like him a lot. We have great arguments. For a while I thought this fellow Dave-- "mulesandmutts"-- might pan out, but it looks like he has gone off the deep "mackenzieraider" end: another fruitcake. This business about the "note" clearly meaning, "packs" = ammo, and Benteen should have gone back with gunny sacks to load up, borders on the insane. Then they really could have accused him of dawdling. It looks like Denver is favored by two, though the fellow in the New York Times has picked Seattle... he feels Russell Wilson, with some defensive help, will outshine Peyton Manning. I get a kick out of this business about a great defense vs a great offense. Suddenly, these are two teams for the ages. From what I have seen, Denver's offense is better as an offense than Seattle's defense is as a defense. Seattle is hardly the '85 Bears or the '86 Giants, nor is it in the class of the old Steelers, the old Purple People Eaters, or Ronnie Lott's 49ers. And while I think you can make an argument Peyton Manning is one of the five greatest QBs of all time, this crew ain't the Rams of Curt Warner. And before you blow a gasket, anyone, I am not comparing Warner to Manning; I'm comparing the overall offense, receivers and the great Ram running back, Marshall Faulk, to what Manning has. Hell, that may even make Manning better than advertised. Personally, I think Seattle will win, but I am hoping the trophy goes to Denver. Pete Carroll is a cheat and he leaves a real bad taste in my mouth. He is like John Calipari and Eddie Sutton in college basketball: cheat and run. That's my Sunday sermon. Nomine patre....Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Feb 2, 2014 14:06:28 GMT -6
Well I was keeping my powder dry until all you military boys had your say, but from where I am sat it’s a straight forward case of a Major out ranks a Captain, Reno not only out ranked Benteen, he was also the second in command of the Regiment and that makes him Benteen’s senior.
Now you Officers may know the answer to this question;
If a Captain from say from the 2nd Cavalry was leading a detail on a particular mission ordered by his commander, and he ran across a Major from the 6th Cavalry, could the Major still order him to aid him in any way he wanted? Or could the Captain say “I have my orders from Colonel Hunter and I refuse to comply with your orders”.
If you all agree that the Captain still had to follow the orders from the Captain then cut and dry and Benteen had to obey Reno.
Ian.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Feb 2, 2014 14:33:50 GMT -6
Ian: I am going way out on a limb to answer your scenario - It depends. If the 6th Cavalry Major had a compelling reason for his giving the 2nd Cavalry Captain the order, then yes it should be obeyed. In the absence of a compelling reason the Captain is obligated to use his best judgment and possibly refuse the order. It's another one of those bet your bars situations that Montrose describes.
|
|