azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Mar 8, 2016 16:56:40 GMT
Whatever the age or technology, effective command and control will come down to people using information to decide and act wisely. And whatever the age or technology, the ultimate measure of command and control effectiveness will always be the same: Can it help us act faster and more effectively than the enemy?
Semper Fi
AZ Ranger
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Mar 8, 2016 17:45:41 GMT
Neighborhood kids are not a organized group but C & C is used in choosing football and baseball teams and rules to play by. C & C is C & C is it not? Regards Dave
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2016 18:09:20 GMT
I find it interesting that representatives of the University of Montana used the words "place used to orchestrate the battle" referring to a place on the Rosebud battlefield in the other thread. Orchestration is the act of commanding and controlling. Seems that those folks are convinced some measure of C and C did exist in some basic form. Certainly it is not the C4ISR of today, and perhaps that is Matt's sticking point, not being able to differentiate between the cell phone and secure text, the commissioned leader, and the authority vested in them by government, vice the bone whistle, hand signal, and natural leader that people voluntarily follow. They seem worlds apart, but in fact are the same for those with eyes to see.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 8, 2016 20:06:06 GMT
Then your point must be that Indians had no military therefor no military terms apply. If we follow what you are stating then law enforcement has no C2 since they are not military.
The Coast Guard would only have C2 when war is declared? (They exercise police powers at other times unlike the other military branches)
"The word is now identified as denoting someone that is skilled in use of weapons, or engaged in military service or in warfare."
I think you are presenting a weak argument that only "military" can have command and control.
I think the fighting forces of the Indians would be considered as skilled in the use of weapons and engaged in warfare.
Regards
AZ Ranger
My point is simply you cannot take a modern military term and assign it the Indians. C2 is counter to everything the Indians believed in and fought for. Go to FM - 30 Sect 5-2 and explain how the Indian "structure" fits.
If you want to suggest they used communication and coordination (C2 take 2), then I could go along with you. C2 as being defined and applied those does not fit.
Regards Matt
Very poor debate style Matt, you can't say one thing and then at a whim, redefine your argument. You begin with the NA couldn't have C2 because of your false premise that they have an 'individualist' nature. They don't--it's a tribal society where the needs of the individual are secondary to the needs of the many. Anyone who puts his individual wants or needs primary of the tribe is censored--such as when Crazy Horse didn't follow the tribal way to take another man's wife. First did the Native Americans have a military? Yes, all able bodied men were considered members. Each member had their own weapons and transportation--perhaps you could look at the Swiss military for European model. There is a command structure with tribal members belonging to societies that are lead by elected or appointed leaders. Each society would have responsibilities to the tribe such as organizing moves, hunting parties and helping to settle disagreements within the tribe--at the time of war or attack the societies would defend the tribe. Sort of sounds a bit like the National Guard. Young men would follow the leadership of the best fighters to gain recognition and approval. Now you are saying they can't have C2 because it's a modern military term. Are you going to say that Wellington didn't have C2 at Waterloo? That happened 60 years before BLBH. What about Agincourt? The Battle of Hastings? Teuroburg? When by your definition of modern does C2 start? So we have command--top warriors being followed by young men. Control--the young men follow the directions of the top warriors. Communication--whistles, mirrors, hand signals Coordination--constant training in hunts are going to make for well trained fighting teams. Hunting buffalo isn't all that different from hunting soldiers. Beth
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 8, 2016 20:28:20 GMT
There are many sides to the argument on were the word comes from and what it meant. www.native-languages.org/iaq5.htm However like many words the meaning and usage has drifted and taken on connotations. When you read 19th century writing, just the fact they use the term squaw instead of woman shows in the writer's mind there is a difference. Try calling your wife or daughter your squaw and see what reaction you get.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 8, 2016 20:43:43 GMT
You have changed your argument from it did not exist to it could not exist.
Were you in error on the multiple posts you made before you changed?
Regards
AZ Ranger
AZ, I believe my point has been consistent. The Indians did not have a command and control structure. I suggested if you want to say they communicated with each other and coordinated activities then I have no argument. Not to be redundant but there was no structure, there were no orders, there was no structure of control. C2 as defined did not exist.
Correcting previous post; should have read FM 3-0 and 30.
I also take serious exception to my service being questioned. I served and fought for my rights and the rights of all Americans to live in peace and express their opinions. I watched friends die defending those same rights. Because I have a difference of opinion, I am asked to lay my record on the table for all to judge. Well that's not going to happen. My commanding officers and those that served with me are the only ones who can judge my record.
I will leave you all to agree with each other.
Regards Matt
Matt your bluff has been called, the other players are asking you to put your cards on the table. If you are going to make an argument based on your military experience and training then everyone has a right to ask exactly what your experience is. It would be like if I claimed that I know such and such thing existed based on my college degree. It would be perfectly understandable for everyone to ask what that degree was in to decide if it's relevant.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 8, 2016 20:49:07 GMT
Neighborhood kids are not a organized group but C & C is used in choosing football and baseball teams and rules to play by. C & C is C & C is it not? Regards Dave Every part of life has a C&C aspect to it. We can not function as a society without it. Even if you look at things like hippie communes in the 60's or 70's, you will find they are not just individuals living in a common space, they have a society with a social structure.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 8, 2016 20:55:22 GMT
I find it interesting that representatives of the University of Montana used the words "place used to orchestrate the battle" referring to a place on the Rosebud battlefield in the other thread. Orchestration is the act of commanding and controlling. Seems that those folks are convinced some measure of C and C did exist in some basic form. Certainly it is not the C4ISR of today, and perhaps that is Matt's sticking point, not being able to differentiate between the cell phone and secure text, the commissioned leader, and the authority vested in them by government, vice the bone whistle, hand signal, and natural leader that people voluntarily follow. They seem worlds apart, but in fact are the same for those with eyes to see. The C4ISR of today, won't be the same thing in the future. Who knows 140 years from now some future scholar might look at our conflicts and think "How in the heck did they do it without......" Sort of like those of us who remember that somehow everyone got to an event and home without being in constant contact through a cell phone.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2016 22:03:35 GMT
The C4ISR of today won't be the same thing five minutes from the time I say JUMP. JUMP.
The real funny thing though is that often times the rudimentary C2 methods used by the Indians, and possibly the Germanic tribes in the Teutoburger Wald are superior, and certainly more secure than the modern methods, are still taught, and in wide use.
You will never hear a bird call quite the same ever again, will you Beth?
This also seems a good time and place to address Matt's accusation that we are all here to agree with each other, as if we were a group of Bobble Heads constantly nodding in agreement saying yes sir, yes sir, three bags full. Nothing could be further from the truth as you and the other regulars here well know. Each of us initially came from a different place far apart, and in those areas where we do find large scale agreement, there was a process of consensus building that sometimes took months or years to accomplish that agreement. To an outsider or new member it may seem like a mutual admiration society, but unless that person understands the journey undertaken before, and they usually don't, comments like that are as unwelcome as a dog peeing on a newly shined pair of boots.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 8, 2016 22:34:35 GMT
All, I have been working on a boat all day, with a little time out to babysit a grandson and in the last 8 hours I see all kind of haggling over acronyms and military backgrounds. What's the deal? I am sure I don't know who dropped the C-2 buzz word, first, but it seems is being thrown to impress and it certainly did not apply in 1876, as it does today. Long and short of it is I worked for the G-3 and a G-4,at different times, we had C-2 just as G-2 and G-1. I am sure Matt knows which functions fall under all of the G's, any officer would. That being said, all of the NA"s had their own form of command and control.
Jeez.
Regards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 8, 2016 22:42:41 GMT
Chuck,
Screw the rest of you bobble heads. Crazy Horse traversed the entire village and attacked from Ford D, not Deep Ravine. The area he attacked from, even bears his name. Also there were once head stones under your favorite restaurant, maybe that is what taints your burgers. Maybe some ghost did not LTC's. Breakfasts are great there, for former NCO's, ask AZ! t
Regards, Tom
|
|
colt45
First Lieutenant
Posts: 440
|
Post by colt45 on Mar 8, 2016 22:42:56 GMT
Well said, QC. The army of today is totally different from the army I served in back in the 70's, yet certain basic fundamentals don't change. C2 has always existed, it just didn't have a fancy book definition until recent history. Matt may be right based on book definition, but he is certainly wrong to imply the NA's did not have a functioning C2 at LBH. They most certainly did. The various NA accounts all allude to C2 in one way or another.
I also would like to know about Matt's military service just to know where his viewpoint comes from. I commend him for his service, as I do all who have worn the uniform and respect his opinion, but all the posts that counter his argument are correct and don't slam him in any way. So, it seems a bit sad that his last post seems to indicate he is picking up his toys and going home.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 8, 2016 23:51:43 GMT
I don't see why he thinks it such a big deal.
You were quite open about your own Colt, and that knowledge, that you were an Armor officer, gave us all valuable insights about that experience, that differs from everyone here, and enables us to call upon your specific subject matter opinions when our own are for want of peculiar experience.
He is not going anywhere. He is sulking. He wants to belong, but does not have a clue how to go about it, not realizing time, shared experience, and true comradeship, are more important here than anything else. Therefore his opinions could come from the mouth of God, and it would still not be the key that unlocks the door of belonging. Mark made the same mistake, and many before him as well.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Mar 9, 2016 0:30:21 GMT
Matt does belong. Unfortunately he is at a disadvantage because though we all know each other from belonging to a previous board, he is a stranger. On the other handm we are disadvantaged by not knowing his background and each side could be making assumptions about the others that aren't true.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 9, 2016 0:34:54 GMT
Ah, wisdom, from a mother and an owner of a Labrador. Both fine traits.
Regards, tom
|
|