|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2016 14:56:19 GMT
Capability, that is the designed capability of the unit you are commanding.
If you command a regiment like you would command a brigade or division you are going to lose.
If you command a brigade or division like you command a regiment, then you are micromanaging and not letting the people who should do their individual jobs, do them.
No amount of experience, no matter how diversified can excuse the lack of planning here.
If you depend upon luck, you are a fool.
If you don't have at least a smidgen of good luck, plan until you find some.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2016 15:04:40 GMT
Yes Chuck, I agree with you and further more I would say that when he commanded a whole division, he couldn't lead from the front, in fact he couldn't be everywhere and imagine how large a full division of cavalry would be in the field. Apparently when he commanded a brigade at Gettysburg he charged the Confederates on a couple of occasions and maybe even led the charge himself, but I don't think he could possibly do this as a divisional commander.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 4, 2016 16:16:31 GMT
The responsibility of every commander regardless of what level is to be at the place where you can both exercise command and determine by feel the state of the troops and the progress of the undertaking.
Two assistant division commanders went in on the first wave at Omaha and Utah. Both made on the spot decisions that materially effected the outcome. That is the exception though, not the rule.
Generally you let those assigned to command a subordinate unit, command, unless there is a darn good reason not to. There was a darn good reason on Omaha especially, because the 116th of the 29th ID was OPCON to the 1st ID for the landing phase.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2016 16:47:14 GMT
I must say that all of the operations undertook by the U.S. military on D-Day had their problems, obviously these were down to the fog of war and no blame could be aimed at any commander, and apart from Omaha were the air bombardment overshot and resulted in killing a load of cattle and most of the DD tanks sank, the assault force sent to destroy the guns on Pointe Du Hoc initially lost their way and nearly landed at Pointe De La Percee, the 82nd and 101st were scattered all over the place and on Utah beach they landed on the wrong beach (which was a stroke of luck as this sector was lightly defended compared to their original objective).
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 4, 2016 17:41:02 GMT
Beth
I see your point regarding Custer's luck and his reliance on it during battle. Oddly he was either the unluckiest man alive in business affairs or just a fool making bad investments. I have a vision of Custer being like those I have seen cashing their payroll checks in a casino. Custer did believe he was a lucky man and never hesitated to push it. And yes Custer was lazy in both his military and civilian life who always did just enough to meet the minimum standers.
Matt
Custer had victories that required his leadership, boldness, skill and some luck but did he plan those victories or did he follow other's plans? Custer was an intelligent man as evidenced by his study habits at West Point. Waited till the last moment and did just enough to graduate was Custer's plan of success. He was not a deep thinker or a man with the ability to coordinate all of his units in battle. His record shows an impetuous soldier who often acted without thinking ahead just planning on "the fly."
Custer did not take care of the little things successful leaders must do: 1) insuring continual training in all aspects of the job; 2) communicating all ideas, plans and strategies to subordinates; 3) prevent the actual or perceived issue of nepotism; 4) concentration of all assets on the object or goal and 4) properly plan for all events by studying the object, goal or enemy ascertaining faults or weaknesses to be successful. These are just a few of the mistakes Custer.
The errors Custer made in battle are often the same mistakes in the private or educational sectors by managers, administrators or faculty members who are lazy or complacent. The 7 Ps adage applies to all activities in life and Custer did not use this phrase.
Regards
Dave
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 4, 2016 17:58:29 GMT
Dave, do you ever get the feeling that Custer would have made the same mistakes whatever Intel he had? I think that even with the village located and mapped along with the number of inhabitants, that he would have still acted accordingly, well apart from one thing, he may have kept Benteen close and used his battalion in his attack plan, because I have an inkling that he would have still attacked the village no matter what the odds and planned a three pronged assault from three different locations, Reno and Benteen would be ordered to strike the village and Custer still would have hit them from behind. Well that’s my take on it anyway.
Yan.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 4, 2016 18:55:55 GMT
Yan
I wonder if Custer never let facts, intelligence or details affect his plans and actions if he had already made up his mind. He flew by the seat of his pants regardless of the circumstances.
RoyalWelsh commented on how poor a regimental commander because of lack of coordination, poor command and control and his poor tactics in his The 7th and the LBH - the "Welsh" perspective
which I highly recommend everyone reread. His analysis was spot on and really helped to see Custer's flaws as a regimental commander.
I have been accused of assigning to much blame to GAC for the outcome of the battle but he was responsible for the results. Benteen and Reno made mistakes but they did not plan the campaign or make individual decisions till after Custer split their battalions. Their actions are not the subject of this thread and only Custer commanded the regiment that day. He lost and in combat that is how you keep score, I think? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 4, 2016 20:03:31 GMT
I agree that everyone needs luck. Custer used 'the Custer Luck" like a gambler on a winning streak, at some time the odds are going to catch up to everyone. Custer also used his 'luck' as a cloak of confidence and an excuse for not really having to put a true effort into anything--after all what more do you need if you have luck. For example he believed it would get him through anything and relied on it more than doing his do diligence on how the financial market worked when it came to his silver mine. He went through life wanting the quick easy payout without putting a whole lot of actual effort into it, his choices were just lucky. While there is no disputing a certain amount of luck in some of his engagements Beth, I think you are over generalizing, possibly for effect. You don't come out of so many battles and engagements purely on luck. Custer was a good soldier. He was no dummy. Definitely made mistakes and had flaws but he had many successes too which were earned in no small part because of his leadership, boldness, and skill and maybe a sprinkle of luck. Regards. I am afraid I am having difficulty getting my point across. I agree Custer was a good soldier. I agree he was no dummy--he got into West Point after all. I believe though that he was not a book learning motivated student and was more interested in being physically active-riding and fighting over math and science. Perhaps that is why he strove to remain in the bottom of his class instead of the top--top students went on to prime engineering type posts and Custer wanted the more active assignments like cavalry or infantry. However I think he relied more on his charisma than his training to advance his career once he left West Point. I can't discount his willingness to do things--like go up into an observation balloon--or his courage. Custer seems to have always been drawn to making his way through his career by more physical way--he would rather work harder than smarter. Custer also likes to take shortcuts to his success rather than working himself up which means he doesn't learn the skills that he will need after the war. Today we might say that he didn't pay his dues. Very few people can reach the top of their careers without 'playing those dues" --perhaps only someone with extreme talent. Custer was a a good soldier but he would never have been considered brilliant or even talented. His two claims to fame are his bravery and his youth. By 1876 Custer is a different man--a balding, middle aged man who has spent the last 11 years in a dead end job with little chance of advancement, which Custer thinks he is entitled to. He is standing on the brink of financial ruin due to his gambling and not understanding the world of finance. He has possibly committed professional suicide with the Belknap Scandal and he knows or suspects that he on his last chance to prove he's not just all blow. There is indications that Custer was interested in a political career. He was actively cultivating the attention of the movers and shakers in the Democratic party. Custer really wants their respect and acceptance into their world but who knows if he would have ever been able to establish himself as anything more than a small satellite on the edge of their universe, willing to do their bidding.. It does seem like they were willing to use Custer. He was being encouraged by the Democrats during the Belknap incident, but whether they were going to reward him for his service with political or financial backing we will never know. Personally I suspect they looked as Custer as an interesting novelty rather than a possible business associate. Custer has been unable find the support and an 'in' into the New York society that he wants. He is unable to find a place in post ACW industry which needs engineers to build and manage the booming growth the country was having in things like railroad, mining and manufacturing. (Guess he should have put more effort into his 'book learning) There are also possible indications that thing aren't as lovey dovey in the Custer home and George is spending vast amounts of time away from Libbie Custer while he takes care of business on the other side of the country. He is also a gambler and it brings even more strain in his life. As for "luck", it speaks of a gambler mentality, gamblers have absolute faith that luck will see them through. It will open the door that otherwise would be closed. It will bring opportunities their way that will fill all of their wildest dreams. If they lose, it doesn't really matter, their luck was setting them up for a bigger win next time. Custer has been having a long run of bad luck--a gambler is going to feel that his luck was about to change especially in this battle, his luck owes him but everything is going to be alright because he has just been presented with the job of doing the one thing he is most famous for-fighting bravely. If Custer wins this battle then he will have everyone's attention again and he can ride that luck to his fortune. Believing in a nearly divinely or mystically given luck, makes someone reckless and fearless when caution might be in order though. They will take bigger chances because their luck won't fail them when they need it the most. They trust their luck to make things right even when it's against all odds. They live in the moment thinking if only I can do *this* everything will be alright. Also any collateral damage or chaos that is caused while they are riding their luck is just one of those things--perhaps they just weren't as luck is all. I would be willing to bet if Custer had survived the day even at the price of all but his command, he would be indignant at anyone questioning his choices. He would have found a way to attempt to shift the blame on everyone else but would never take any sort of personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 4, 2016 20:43:08 GMT
Dave, do you ever get the feeling that Custer would have made the same mistakes whatever Intel he had? I think that even with the village located and mapped along with the number of inhabitants, that he would have still acted accordingly, well apart from one thing, he may have kept Benteen close and used his battalion in his attack plan, because I have an inkling that he would have still attacked the village no matter what the odds and planned a three pronged assault from three different locations, Reno and Benteen would be ordered to strike the village and Custer still would have hit them from behind. Well that’s my take on it anyway. Yan. Personally I think Custer was on a mission to prove himself. His mission was to make sure that he capture, neutralize or kill all the hostiles he could and nothing else mattered. His focus was just on making sure none of the hostile escaped and seemed to have a lack of concern about the numbers he faced because he believed that he would win. I think one of the most telling quotes we have about Custer from that time is when he told Varum "Here’s where Reno made the mistake of his life. He had six troops of cavalry and rations enough for a number of days. He’d have made a name for himself if he’d pushed on after them.”
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 4, 2016 20:52:51 GMT
Yan I wonder if Custer never let facts, intelligence or details affect his plans and actions if he had already made up his mind. He flew by the seat of his pants regardless of the circumstances. RoyalWelsh commented on how poor a regimental commander because of lack of coordination, poor command and control and his poor tactics in his The 7th and the LBH - the "Welsh" perspective
which I highly recommend everyone reread. His analysis was spot on and really helped to see Custer's flaws as a regimental commander. I have been accused of assigning to much blame to GAC for the outcome of the battle but he was responsible for the results. Benteen and Reno made mistakes but they did not plan the campaign or make individual decisions till after Custer split their battalions. Their actions are not the subject of this thread and only Custer commanded the regiment that day. He lost and in combat that is how you keep score, I think? Regards Dave I want to echo your recommendation for the Welsh perspective thread. Here is a link to take anyone directly to it since it was quite a ways back The 7th and the LBH-the "Welsh" perspectiveSecond on GAC ad the blame. Not only didn't Benteen and Reno make individual decisions but whether it was intentional or not, they were kept out of the command loop so they had little if any idea what the 'plan' was.
|
|
|
Post by BrevetorCoffin on Mar 4, 2016 21:33:50 GMT
Intelligence and wisdom are entirely different things. Custer was no doubt in my mind an intelligent man. Thelack of wisdom / utilizing poor judgment may have had him studying last minute, not pulling 2 cadets apart engaged in fisticuffs, not scouting Washita and failing to communicate with subordinates at LBH. Also shows a lack of maturity as a leader, etc. I believe that by 1876 his proverbial head was no longer in the game.
Best,
David
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 4, 2016 22:23:43 GMT
Intelligence and wisdom are entirely different things. Custer was no doubt in my mind an intelligent man. Thelack of wisdom / utilizing poor judgment may have had him studying last minute, not pulling 2 cadets apart engaged in fisticuffs, not scouting Washita and failing to communicate with subordinates at LBH. Also shows a lack of maturity as a leader, etc. I believe that by 1876 his proverbial head was no longer in the game. Best, David Custer was a very complicated man that can not be fitted with simple one word labels. He had all the tools at hand to build a very successful life after ACW but he relied instead of staying with the comfortable and known--ironic for a man who built his fame on taking risk. Perhaps Custer believed his father-in-law's statement that he would always be a soldier. I agree with you that Custer was intelligent but lacked good judgement. I also think he lacked focus--he wanted things but wouldn't have put the long term effort it would take to reach his goals. Instead he wanted to ride on his youthful success to give him a shortcut to anything else he wanted--perhaps like a small town college star would ride the success of a winning season into his future career. Both would find what you did at 20ish on a playing field doesn't quite matter as much anymore when you are 35 and haven't played in over a decade. Custer was interested in science and nature but he seems like he was more of a hands on learner over one who would get information from books. He had boundless energy but never seemed to have the ability to focus it in one given direction. He wanted fame and fortune but seems to think that it was more owed to him than earned. I think he wanted to be considered a Gentleman (as it was viewed at that time) but lacked the self confidence to overcome in his head his humbler background. Perhaps that lack of confidence is why Cuser was fiercely loyal to his friends and vengeful to anyone who he felt slighted him.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 4, 2016 23:39:50 GMT
Beth I agree with your analysis of Custer being the middle aged balding pea cock is right on target. He reminds me of the character Reno Hightower in the movie The Best of Times. A man desperately attempting to regain the glory days of being noticed and feted. He missed the social scene of New York and wanted to be a man of means the easy way not working to attain success. Hence the wild investments in mines and precious metals. The idea of working at a career in an office must have been an anathema to a free spirit as him.
He did enough to get out of West Point and always seem to attempt short cuts to success as you pointed out in your posts. He never shied away from physical confrontations and was brave to a fault. Custer had always been reluctant to study when he could play and lived his life that way. His writings brought him acclaim and success and helped to keep him in the public eye.
Remember he loved the theater and performing in home staged plays on the frontier and needed the attention and acclaim as an addict needs a fix. Custer was never going to ride off into the sunset as he needed the glare of the stage lights to validate his existence. Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 4, 2016 23:53:49 GMT
To me,getting into West Point showed that Custer had the potential. Unfortunately like the rest of his career, he seems to have done just enough to get by but not enough to excel.
Perhaps success to him to gain his fame in the press by being a handsome, dashing and brave officer than being a great officer. To build on your acting analogy, he chose to be a John Agar and not a John Wayne.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 5, 2016 1:27:34 GMT
Don't forget Agar got Shirley Temple and the Duke got a stone. Regards Dave
|
|