|
Post by quincannon on Oct 17, 2015 20:05:35 GMT
When you try to command from the front, the first requirement is to command, that being exercising tactical control over all of those you are charged with commanding.
Rommel in his narratives uses a German word that I cannot begin to spell correctly, but it translates to having your finger on the pulse of the battle. He often took personal command of a forward battle group, but only once to my memory was out of communications with what was happening in the entire battle space, that being the Race to the Wire in the Crusader battles. He nearly paid dearly for this, and would have if his staff did not take immediate action to correct the situation. He knew he was wrong and I do not find any repletion of the incident.
Commanders cannot afford to see only that which is in front of them. You cannot spread out over all of God's creation if you have no ability to control those that you spread. You must make your scheme of maneuver commensurate with the capabilities to control that scheme of maneuver.
In modern battle I am comfortable with miles and ten of miles distance of separation, because I have radios, computers, and real time video as my tools of command. I also have means to free me from the tyranny of terrain, so I may react fast to emerging trouble or the fleeting opportunity to put a hurting on my adversary. Doing this I am well within the parameters of control, therefore it can be rightly said that distance within limits of command.
Custer relinquished control of his various elements by his actions, and in my view was not commanding. In the end he reduced himself from regimental command to the role of just another rifleman.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 17, 2015 20:51:58 GMT
Walkie talkies make commanding from the front much easier. I still wonder though if even a person like Rommel would be able to keep his finger on the pulse if the ground he was occupying was under heavy attack. There is a limit to anyone's ability to multitask.
So basically--every time Custer spun off Benteen, Reno, Keogh he is basically demoting himself because he no longer has a way to control all events in real time. On the battlefield he can only command those within the sound of his voice or his trumpeter or in line sight of his hands. He can send messengers of course but the further the groups are spread out, the more ineffective messengers are because they are no longer able to act and react to each other in real time or even a timely manner.
I wonder if Custer even gave it a moment's thought when Reno's messengers stopped coming?
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 17, 2015 20:55:52 GMT
Yes, Custer didn’t really control his companies at all, he was long out of sight when Keogh split his battalion, and when they got corralled over on cemetery hill he had to dance to the Indians tune.
I don’t know why Rommel personally took control, he had two panzer divisions each commanded by able officers, in the time between 1941 and 1943 the 15th panzer had twelve different commanders, 21st panzer had eleven, and I wonder how many times Rommel intervened, I bet the troops didn’t know who was in charge.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 17, 2015 22:13:00 GMT
Exercising control in real time is what is meant by commanding from the front. If you can't, you ain't.
Rommel was constantly getting down in the weeds and it drove his subordinate commanders crazy. I do not believe there was any doubt who was in charge when Rommel was around.
Rommel did the same thing in Africa with Panzers that he did in Italy and Rumania with mountain Infantry. He applied the very same principles of command. He tells us so in his book. He was practicing blitzkrieg at battalion level in the same manner he did with a division in France, and with a Korps and Army in North Africa. He led by positioning himself where he could best control the battle with the means he had to exercise that control. He did not have radios in WWI, but he used the same methods, so he was forced to be more careful is deploying within the limitations of time and space that limited communications laced on him.
Leading from the front means doing the best you can with the means and capabilities you possess.
Here is where people make their mistakes:
Folks like some we see on the goof ball board ASSUME Custer knew was he was doing. They further ASSUME that whatever he did was the correct solution to the tactical problem presented. That puts them in a position then that if Custer was doing the correct thing, operating as he should, then disaster could only befall him because someone(s) else dropped the ball. Assuming that Custer was correct shows either an incomplete knowledge or being devoid of knowledge of the art and science of war.
Here is where people do the right thing. They take a successful commander like a Rommel or Patton and learn how things are done correctly. Then they turn to a Custer or some other ditzfumblefart to SEE what the mistakes were.
The difference here is that you don't see any of those who fall under the influence of a Rommel or Patton having to make excuses and shift blame to subordinates. With Custer fanatics that is all you see.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 18, 2015 11:52:25 GMT
Custer also ceased all offensive operations after the ford B foray and that seem to be a one company sideshow which accomplished nothing except bringing the heat down upon him and his men, so when they all moved to the high ground Custer's whole force of five companies just floundered, in fact I would say the went into a state of limbo just keeping their distance until support showed up, I would go as far and say that he only went north to ford D because he couldn't keep still.
I still think that he kept his brother Tom by his side because he needed someone to bounce off, if he wanted a yes man then he could have picked any of his so called clan, so I don't think that Tom was there just because he would agreed with him, as he doesn't sound like a "yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir" person.
Yan.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Oct 18, 2015 12:02:32 GMT
I think Custer lead from the front but from there he could not command. I remember reading about Julius Caesar and how he "lead from the front". Apparently he always rode a white horse so that his men could see him. He was rarely still and was seen all over the battlefield often making a point of stopping to encourage his men. The story goes that at the end of a battle they all thought that he had fought with them. They loved him for it. It was a shadow. Actually he was constantly viewing the action and issuing orders as required. At LBH Custer handed command to subordinates (first Benteen then Reno then Keogh) while he rushed ahead. That may be leading but it is not commanding. He also had no front to command as he had fragmented his force. Cheers
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Oct 18, 2015 12:05:05 GMT
Hi Ian Sorry about the Rugby but a great effort by Wales. Gotta go. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 18, 2015 13:15:34 GMT
Hello Mac, yes England were pretty poor and true to form they were out-enthused by Welch and Aussie teams who just wanted it more, and to add to that they put all the blame of one man, Sam Burgess, why? Because he was a Rugby League player who could have won games for them if they just knew how to use him, the Welch give it a good shot last night but they left their blind-side open at what was probably the last scrum of the game and the Boks capitalised on it.
Exactly Mac Custer stripped his command down to just himself, his brother and a 1st Lieutenant who just did what he was told, now I suppose if you want to break your regiment into four then you need to give each segment an officer and most of these had to be captains because he only had one major, but once he took to the bluffs then only one out of the three captains under his command would have any say and that would be Tom Custer, Keogh and Yates were in charge of their battalions and pretty much told what to do.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Oct 18, 2015 23:50:56 GMT
Is there a translating service or web site that could allow a person to understand the "It's Greek to Me" paragraph below? He He
"Hello Mac, yes England were pretty poor and true to form they were out-enthused by Welch and Aussie teams who just wanted it more, and to add to that they put all the blame of one man, Sam Burgess, why? Because he was a Rugby League player who could have won games for them if they just knew how to use him, the Welch give it a good shot last night but they left their blind-side open at what was probably the last scrum of the game and the Boks capitalised on it. " Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Oct 19, 2015 1:23:31 GMT
Dave you can get revenge by posting a written account of the last few seconds of the Michigan-Michigan State game.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 19, 2015 11:35:05 GMT
Dave the Boks are the springboks which is the nick name of the South African RU team, a rugby scrum has two sides, the open side were the scrum half puts the ball in and the blind side, the scrum in question was close to the touch line and about 20 yards from the Welsh try line so they should have had a defender or two covering that channel.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 19, 2015 18:00:05 GMT
Back to the BLBH, now we have discussed how inadequate cavalry were in the role of subduing a larger force and should be used be used in conjuncture with Infantry, now Terry knew that Custer would be searching for this village and in all probability he would try and take it alone, now Terry must also recognise all the areas in which cavalry are vulnerable, and we ourselves have been highlighting the very areas that cavalry are most vulnerable, so why did Terry allow this to happen, why didn’t he break the 7th into two columns under Custer and Reno, as was done with both the 2nd and 3rd cavalry, as these two regiments were split and used in tandem with Infantry.
Yan.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Oct 19, 2015 18:34:25 GMT
Anyone serious about the art and science of war thinks in terms of combined arms. That is not only true now but just as true for the last two thousand years or more. Hank the Five used combined arms at Agincourt. Caesar used combined arms in Gaul. In fact the Roman legion is the prototype upon which all modern combined arms units are based.
That said I will leave you to your own conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Oct 19, 2015 18:47:56 GMT
Exactly Chuck, the 7th could have been split into two columns with each containing six cavalry companies and a couple of Infantry battalions.
Just looking at the way these three columns were made up (Montana, Wyoming & Dakota) and there is definitely room for a re-think, if they had managed to field three full regiments of cavalry and six Infantry regiments then this would allow for six balanced columns each containing six cavalry companies and two Infantry battalions. You could then attached two columns each under the command of Terry, Gibbon and Crook.
Yan.
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 439
|
Post by colt45 on Oct 19, 2015 18:59:26 GMT
Terry had the 7th in mind from the outset to be his main strike force, and he saw Gibbon as the blocking force (hammer and anvil), so that begs the question of why would he send only cavalry against the Indians, if he knew and understood the limitations of cavalry? He did offer additional cavalry and gatling guns to Custer, of which he should have taken the cavalry. But Terry either did not grasp the concept of combined arms, or he felt that the hostiles could not or would not stand up against the 7th, or like Custer, he was supremely confident the 7th alone could do the job.
I think Terry was well aware of the fact that there were more Indians out there than Custer had men to handle, so you really have to wonder about what his thinking was about the enemy and the enemy's capabilities and will to fight. I suppose he could have assumed that Crook would be in the area as well as Custer, and that their combined forces would be sufficient, but I don't think Terry was stupid enough to assume Crook and Custer would meet up. I certainly would never make that assumption and I doubt any competent officer would, so one just has to wonder at Terry's expectations when he let Custer go with just the 7th alone. Was he really that confident cavalry alone could do the job, or was he hoping Custer's aggressiveness was enough to win the day? Reading his orders to Custer on the 22nd indicates he was leaving plenty of room for his own CYA in case something bad happened, but that in itself lends one to believe he knew full well the 7th alone was probably not enough force to accomplish the mission. Makes one wonder about Terry.
|
|