|
|
Post by Kentishman on May 24, 2016 15:23:03 GMT -6
The 2015 issue of the Custer Association of Great Britain's (CAGB) excellent journal, The Crow's Nest, though slightly overdue, contains a well-researched, informative and interesting article by Frederic Wagner, entitled 'Trains Along the Yellowstone,' which was certainly worth waiting for. When one adds a 'fresh look' at the 'Carrington and the Fetterman Affair' by Francis B. Taunton, the UK doyen of all things Plains Indian Wars, this is British publishing at its very best. The reproduction on the front cover of Jerry Thomas's 'Toward the Valley' and Kenneth Ferguson's painting 'Dragonfly' on the back serve to enhance this issue. For further information about the CAGB contact Kevin Galvin at keg.cagb@btinternet.com
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 24, 2016 20:09:06 GMT -6
I am not a member of the UK org. What argument does Mister Wagner make in his trains article?
I believe in this area we see that LTC Custer was an excellent, above average company grade officer.
In the American war against slavery, he showed skill at general officer grade decisions, where he showed superior ability at division than brigade.
As a field grade officer, he had serious flaws. Not incompetence, but gross incompetence. Under then articles of war and the later uniform code of military justice, this is a significant difference. Being incompetent means you had a bad day. Gross incompetence means you are unfit to serve in that grade.
This makes Custer interesting. He showed superior skills as a division commander in a conventional war. Yet he was a useless incompetent officer in unconventional war, as a field grade officer. Please note that GAC never served a single day as a field grade officer in the ACW.
Would training in company and field grade duties and responsibilities produced a better Custer? At least moved him from grossly incompetent to incompetent?
Would experience in company and field grade duties and responsibilities produced a better Custer? Please note that there is a huge difference in these grades between what you learn in command, and what you learn as staff. In his entire career, GAC did not have a single day in command at company level.
I can, and do, blame LTC Custer for his many, many, many failures 1866-1876. The 7th was very badly trained and led, not by modern standards, but by comparison with the other units of this era.
But the Army is to blame for putting a press release dog and pony officer in command. His failings were well known. Reading his court martial transcript blew my mind. I am outraged that he was ever allowed a green tab position after his conviction.
Green tab means the tab you wear on your dress green uniform if in a command slot. This is not officer only. It means fire team, squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and on up. So many of our enlisted personnel here have been green tabbers. I have issues with too much deference granted from folks who served based on what rank someone had. Who cares.
My question to all who served is why was LTC Custer allowed to serve after his conviction. Just a reminder, 11 people died directly due to his incompetent acts and decisions. LT Calley did not get a battalion, never mind brigade, command after his conviction.
And for those without exposure to military culture, why was he retained? He got the boot, it should have been permanent.
I believe GAC is a major reason why the 7th lost at LBH. The main reason they lost was the poor training and experience of the 7th in collective and individual skills, compared to the rest of the Army. Any other regiment in the Army would have performed better. We can see this, since other units were brought in after LBH, and all did better.
The secondary cause was the incompetence of LTC Custer as a person, and the 7th leadership. The 7th was useless at any activity above company level. This is a damning indictment of their field grade leadership, or lack thereof. The only officer who seemed at least average in field grade TTP is named Fred, but he did not go to Georgetown.
The 7th showed decent performance at noncommissioned officer and soldier level. In the north, we can clearly see 5 clumps where companies died as collective entities, showing NCO and EM duty to the bitter end. In particular, I see SGT Finley and Finkle as exemplary performers as NCOs, and LT Calhoun and Crittenden as company grade officers (as was Harrington, if I am correct on when and where he died).
Respectfully,
William
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 25, 2016 8:42:43 GMT -6
I am not a member of the UK org. What argument does Mister Wagner make in his trains article? Actually, no specific point other than the difficulty confronted by the various trains, the movements of the Indians, and the poor intelligence estimates. People should also understand that Will "Montrose" Bender was instrumental in helping me put this article together. The organization of the article was Will's idea, as I was completely stumped by an area outside my normal purview. So while my name appears on the article and the material comes from my notes, any credit for its success belongs by more than half to Will. That is the way most of these things go. Very little that I have done goes without some sort of thanks to an awful lot of people. Best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 25, 2016 8:53:42 GMT -6
Will
For us civilians would you explain the duties of a field grade officer? I am not aware of the difference between company and field grade officers duties, responsibilities etc.
Thank You.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by montrose on May 25, 2016 9:24:32 GMT -6
1. Company grade officers are second lieutenants, first lieutenants and captains assigned to companies.
2. Field grade officers are majors, lieutenant colonels and colonels assigned to regiments for this era.
3. General officers are brigade and above.
4. The fuzzy factor. The emphasis is on duties and responsibilities, vice just your rank. So a captain commanding a battalion or regiment is functioning as a field grade officer. But when we talk the grades, we mean what do we expect an officer to be able to do at that level, with respect to skills, knowledge and abilities (SKA). What I mean is that in a high casualty situation we can see low ranks command above their grade, but the Army has different expectations on the performance of a junior in a senior position in a crisis, vice someone performing duties level appropriate.
5. Why bother? The SKA to be successful at company, field and general grade are not the same, nor are they sequential/evolutionary. Any military organization hopes that success at company grade means success at field means success at general. The problem is that this is not true. Officers show differing ability by grade.
Now if a successful company grade officer fails at field grade, okay. We assume that SKA is linear and as you advance in grade individual requires higher SKA.
But it doesn't work that way.
Many useless company grade officers shine at field or general level. As the organization gets larger the skills of the leader change.
And do not confuse likability with grade ability. Some jerks are wonderful commanders.
I am making the claim that GAC was average at company grade, one of the worst officers in the history of war at field grade, and above average at general grade.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 25, 2016 15:17:04 GMT -6
Gentlemen, Our esteemed Fred Wagner is a true scholar of the LBH in all its manifest convictions and controversies. He attributes all of his sources to where they originated and cites chapter and verse. As I have pointed out on a previous occasion, Fred is the Fred Dustin of the 21st century, without the rancour and prejudice that characterize Dustin's work. We are, indeed, living in Fred Wagner's world and should give a tip of the hat to this "Master of Research". Regards, Pequod Robb-Pequod... and others... I do not even know what to say to or about that comment above. It is absolutely humbling and is a greater paean than I deserve or could have ever hoped for. My sincerest and deepest thanks to you, Robb. Very best wishes, Fred. |
|
|
|
Post by Kentishman on May 25, 2016 15:24:21 GMT -6
Before I read Fred's excellent article I knew very little about the logistics of how the Dakota and Montana columns made it to the Little Big Horn. Thanks to Fred and, apparently Mr Bender, I'm now much better informed.
|
|
|
|
Post by benteen on May 25, 2016 16:42:28 GMT -6
Robb-Pequod... and others... I do not even know what to say to or about that comment above. It is absolutely humbling and is a greater paean than I deserve or could have ever hoped for. My sincerest and deepest thanks to you, Robb. Very best wishes, Fred. Captain Fred, You deserve every word of it.......Make sure you send him the check  Be Well Dan |
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 25, 2016 19:02:56 GMT -6
Fred
As you and I know "...You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” and you are a perfect example. You are a serious and well informed man who has the ability and talent to share knowledge with others without being condescending. You do your family and yourself proud.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 25, 2016 19:39:38 GMT -6
You are all extremely kind and I thank each and every one of you.
Peter,
When I first assembled the article from my notes, it totaled in excess of 13,000 words. I read it through and it sounded like a bullet-point presentation. Either Will called me or I called him and he made some suggestions, one of which was to send him the whole thing. Will e-mailed some suggestions, the primary one being to re-organize the whole thing within certain frames of dates. By doing that, then eliminating a lot of the side-bar fluff, it made the article a lot more presentable.
To be very honest, without Will Bender's help, I would have e-mailed Kevin Galvin and told him he would have to settle for a different subject.
You do not find many people as good as Will Bender. And in uniform, he is one of America's finest.
Best wishes and many, many thanks to all of you,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by fred on May 25, 2016 19:41:01 GMT -6
... and by the way, Dave, I am deeply indebted to you for that Ellison quote. I swing that baby around like a bat. It is great!!
Best wishes,
Fred.
|
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 26, 2016 7:13:25 GMT -6
How do we get a copy of the article?
Thanks
AZ Ranger
|
|
|
|
Post by Kentishman on May 26, 2016 7:51:57 GMT -6
Why not contact the editor of 'The Crow's Nest, Kevin Galvin, at keg.cagb@btinternet.com? I 'm fairly sure that Kevin will be in the United States next month and may well already be intending to bring a supply of copies with him.
|
|
|
|
Post by dave on May 26, 2016 8:47:21 GMT -6
I just sent my e-mail request to Mr. Galvin asking how I might get a copy of Fred's article. I will let others know what can be done after hearing back from Mr. Galvin.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Kentishman on May 30, 2016 16:08:34 GMT -6
Dave,
Have you any further news regarding how to get hold of a copy of the CAGB's The Crow's Nest?
|
|
