|
Post by Beth on Jan 23, 2017 22:28:33 GMT
The amount of time they had or did not have Beth is a factor, but not reason for poor performance overall. Time becomes a factor when it comes to the ability to work together as a cohesive group, beyond training. Perhaps today we would call it a team building, everyone may know how to do their job but Team A doesn't know, trust, and can work with Team B. In the case of the 7th there were a lot of teams that had to learn to work together and trust each other's abilities. Isn't this always a factor in the military, enlistments end and new people come in? Was the difference between 1876 and now basic training? You lost me there. Can you explain on span of control? That's because they think of the military at that time as dashing men doing brave things in cool uniforms. They don't see or experience the blood, sweat, and fears.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 23, 2017 22:50:50 GMT
Span of control is the ability to direct and supervise, men or organizations.
The optimal number is three to five. Three is the time proven best. Four is OK, Five, and you begin to strain abilities. Above that it is problematic. Twelve is insane.
Most States have state police barracks spread all over the individual state. They operate largely independently and are responsible for a given geographic area. Within that area they operate very effectively. Were something to happen that would cause all of these state police units to congregate at one point for some sort of emergency, you would have well trained state police units and officers, but until they settled down into a much larer organizational construct it would be clusterf**kism writ large, unless they had practiced this on a leader level well beforehand. There is also an established emergency chain of command designated for these unusual events. I know that the Maryland State Police do practice this very thing. I presume other state police forces do as well. But if you don't it can be a nightmare.
The best organization has one man responsible for directing three. Those three in turn direct three or four, and so forth.
The USMC Rifle Platoon is the best set up of Span of Control and echelonment of organization that comes to mind.
The Platoon leader supervises three rifle squad leaders. Each squad leader in turn supervises three fire team leaders, Each fire team leader in turn supervises the three remaining riflemen in his team.
To answer your other question. Yes new blood into your organization effects readiness, but by the time a new man joins your unit he has had a minimum of sixteen weeks of intensive training. At that point the unit normally does not descend back down to the individual level of training, keeping at unit and above. That is not to say that the whole unit does not periodically refresh themselves on basic soldier skills. They do. What we had in 1876 was mostly a week or two at Jefferson Barracks, and then off to the unit without mastering anything it takes to become a soldier.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 23, 2017 23:30:14 GMT
Ian: The first mention I see in General Orders regarding squadrons (battalions) of fixed composition for the 7th Cavalry is in 1921.
Infantry Regiments were set up with fixed battalions right after the Spanish American War.
Squadron was the replacement term for battalion post 1883, but I see no indication in either General Orders or narratives that that change in term brought about a fixed battalion organization, As a matter of fact that organization listed in the blurb you posted did not exist for the 7th Cavalry until three months into the Korean War (1950)
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 23, 2017 23:42:47 GMT
I think a diagram of what the 7th's command structure looked like that day and what it should have looked like would be useful, at least to me. I wonder also what command looked like at a company level.
In today's military do they try to spread the coming and going out so it is a more constant stream that you have x number of new people Y number of people who are in the middle of their enlistment and X people at the end of their enlistment with the two X forces being about equal but the bulk is Y?
What would they learn at Jefferson Barracks or was it more of a warehouse to hold people until they could decide where to send them?
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 24, 2017 0:56:32 GMT
28-29% were one yearish.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 24, 2017 2:30:10 GMT
Beth: Put an X on a piece of paper centered on the sheet. Beneath it place twelve X's across the page. Then draw a line from each of the bottom row of X's to the lone X. That was the official command structure, and the span of control was 1 to 12.
From these twelve the one X could form any number of battalions up to six.
The regiment was assigned in theory three field grade officers (Majors) who were there for the sole purpose of commanding up to the number of three such battalions, on a mission basis. Only one was present at LBH. The rest were somewhere on detached duty. This battalion headquarters was a headquarters of one. There was no provision for any battalion staff or helpers in any way.
It was the worst possible organization one could conceive if you intended to engage in combat. Had any bank or corporation, or business of any kind organized their particular endeavor to operate in this manner they would fail. Yet congress was still trying to do things on the cheap, and it showed. Bad organizations produce bad results. Bad organizational structures that are mandated to be organized badly only succeed if the person controlling the organization give the finger to the designers, and through experience or experimentation reorganize without any official permission into something that works.
Had Custer, while at Fort Lincoln said I am going to organize into three (or four) battalions, each of four or three companies, and these battalions will be commanded by Huey, Dewey, and Louie, and this organization will remain in effect for the duration of the campaign. These battalions will march together, sleep together, eat together, when the opportunity presents itself train together, and only operate together, and more importantly I will be watching every goddamned move you make, it would not have solved the problem, it was too late for that, but it sure as hell would have saved some soldiers lives.
Jefferson Barracks was what we today would call a reception station, where you get your clothes, maybe a tiny bit of training, and are shipped out by the next available means.
There are a number of ways that units can maintain strength Beth. There is no one answer.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 24, 2017 12:18:08 GMT
The best organization has one man responsible for directing three. Those three in turn direct three or four, and so forth.
The USMC Rifle Platoon is the best set up of Span of Control and echelonment of organization that comes to mind.
The Platoon leader supervises three rifle squad leaders. Each squad leader in turn supervises three fire team leaders, Each fire team leader in turn supervises the three remaining riflemen in his team.
This web site explains very well. link
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 24, 2017 12:22:40 GMT
Chuck, as you know the internet is full of very good sites, but these are compromised by some not so good ones, so the only way we can sort out the wheat from the chaff is to display them in a hope that any inaccuracies will get found out, so thanks for pointing that out.
I know that before the battle a cavalry a company on paper contained 70 all ranks, and not long after the battle this was increased to 100 all ranks.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 24, 2017 12:42:51 GMT
Beth, I too am interested by company level organization and how these small formations would handle themselves in the field.
I have took Company F as an example and displayed how they looked when they rode to ford D;
F COMPANY Captain G. Yates 2nd Lieutenant W. Reily 1st Sergeant M. Kenney Sergeant F. Nursey Sergeant J. Vickory Sergeant J. Wilkinson Corporal J. Briody Corporal C. Coleman Corporal W. Teeman Trumpeter T. Way Black Smith J. Manning Farrier B. Brandon Trooper T. Atchison Trooper W. Brady Trooper B. Brown Trooper W. Brown Trooper P. Bruce Trooper L. Burnham Trooper J. Carney Trooper A. Cather Trooper A. Dohman Trooper T. Donnelly Trooper W. Gardiner Trooper G. Hammon Trooper J. Kelly Trooper G. Klein Trooper H. Knauth Trooper W. Lerock Trooper W. Liemann Trooper W. Lossee Trooper C. Madsen Trooper F. Milton Trooper J. Monroe Trooper S. Omling Trooper P. Rudden Trooper R. Saunders Trooper F. Sicfous Trooper G. Warren
Now this is what I would imagine the leadership would look like;
Company HQ Captain G. Yates 2nd Lieutenant W. Reily 1st Sergeant M. Kenney Trumpeter T. Way
Now going on the norm, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Yates and Reily both had orderlies and these would be a couple of Troopers.
Now this leaves three line Sergeants and three Corporals to look after things at lower level and how these operated I don't know and were the Blacksmith and Farrier were located again I don't know.
I remember talking a while back to Montroes and said that there was no formation below Company level, which rules of Platoons. The men do seem to operate in sets of four and these can be detached to form details for a specific task for example a burial detail.
But as far as the idea that each Sergeant commanded so many Corporals and Troopers and each Corporal commanded a certain number of set of fours, then I really don't know.
And before I am told off, I know that Troopers are also known as Privates.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jan 24, 2017 13:07:10 GMT
Troopers in this case mean all ranks, at least enlisted. Today, Airmen all ranks in USAF.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 24, 2017 15:49:25 GMT
Hi Tom, the F Company list was typed out by me a few years ago and for some reason I listed all the privates as troopers, so I didn't want to spend the time changing it all, because it didn't seem worth it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 24, 2017 17:17:19 GMT
The word Private is the actual rank of the individual soldier.
The word trooper in American usage is the same as using the words enlisted soldier and applies only to the cavalry branch.
It was common to say then Company X contained two officers and fifty troopers.
The word trooper is also frequently used with regard to the Airborne Infantry community, but is normally used to address one soldier as in Trooper I want you to do thus and so. It derives its origin from Paratrooper.
Again the word matters but, how it is used differs from place to place over time.
Same thing in the USMC. The word Marine is in general usage for all Marines regardless of rank as a blanket term, but when addressing a Marine NCO, the due respect shown would be to say Corporal, Gunnery Sergeant etc.
Tom is absolutely correct in the Air Force, and the Navy, the words Airman and Sailor are used in the abstract to refer to all enlisted ranks in those services. Try calling a Chief Master Sergeant, or Chief Petty Officer airman or sailor though and you have disrespected their rank and by extension disrespected them.
When you are making a list of positions derived from a Table of Organization it is proper to use the rank (Private)
In the British Army a private soldier in say The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards it is perfectly proper to address him by his rank which is the rank of Trooper. In the Royal Artillery to address a private soldier it is perfectly proper to address him as Gunner, for that is his official rank.
Words and how they are used matter. I would never entertain the thought of addressing Tom as Airman or Steve as Marine, but both of them could be called in the abstract Airman and Marine.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jan 24, 2017 21:05:52 GMT
the usage of the word trooper used to confuse me so much as a kid because I associated trooper with 'the troops" but the only trooper I saw on a regular basis was the State Highway Patrol which were police, not military.
I took the liberty of changing Trooper to Private
F COMPANY Captain G. Yates 2nd Lieutenant W. Reily 1st Sergeant M. Kenney Sergeant F. Nursey Sergeant J. Vickory Sergeant J. Wilkinson Corporal J. Briody Corporal C. Coleman Corporal W. Teeman Trumpeter T. Way Black Smith J. Manning Farrier B. Brandon Private T. Atchison Private W. Brady Private B. Brown Private W. Brown Private P. Bruce Private L. Burnham Private J. Carney Private A. Cather Private A. Dohman Private T. Donnelly Private W. Gardner Private G. Hammon Private J. Kelly Private G. Klein Private H. Knauth Private W. Lerock Private W. Liemann Private W. Lossee Private C. Madsen Private F. Milton Private J. Monroe Private S. Omling Private P. Rudden Private R. Saunders Private F. Sicfous Private G. Warren
|
|
|
Post by royalwelsh on Feb 3, 2017 22:50:00 GMT
Take a step back, and put the breakout in context.
What was the offensive strength/role of the Reno battalion?
3 platoon size companies, who were not a regular cohesive battalion. 140 soldiers, plus odds and sods auxiliaries, to attack one of the largest "towns" west of the Missouri. Strong enough to potentially cause a panic and to exacerbate a panic, if pressure was being applied elsewhere. No pressure was being applied elsewhere, and the hostiles were counter-attacking rather than fleeing. Offensive action ends.
What was the defensive strength/role of the Reno battalion? . A force that, unless the counter-attacking hostiles were drawn away from it, would (without relief) be overwhelmed on low ground in the valley if the hostiles were prepared to accept sufficient casualties. Reno had to break out, and he realised it. There are some criticisms possible of the execution, but wipe out in situ was avoided.
When Benteen arrived, he came upon the remnants of a defeated battalion. Any forward movement towards Custer, under orders or due to command breakdown, was undesirable in terms of the Reno/Benteen command itself. It was broken, or enough of it was to constitute the whole.
Custer's demise was sufficient to save Reno/Benteen, satisfying hostile bloodlust, until Terry/Brisbin approached.
Custer had 12 (platoon size) companies. 3 of them actually launched an assault that day. 25%. You won't win many offensive battles against a numerically superior enemy if you assault with 25% and divide your command into 4. And then end-up fighting in isolation with the main battalion as 5 separate companies. Was Custer commanding the regiment, a battalion or F company...? Answers on a postcard...
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 4, 2017 1:29:06 GMT
Why is that professional soldiers, both active and retired, always agree that Benteen had to stop and assist Reno? Could it be that they know what they are talking about? Regards Dave
|
|