Questions concerning the U S Army

[quincannon]

Why in the world would you want to have tube artillery in a regimental cannon company when you already had the finest artillery organization in the world supporting that regiment from the outside.

If you look at how those cannon companies were most often employed, they were not shooting but rather used as just another - short of manpower - rifle company. They were as useless for their designed purpose as after shave on a dead man. Even the heavy mortar company did not survive long in the force structure.

Having a weapon is only one tenth of the issue. The other nine tenths is where and how it is best employed to support the troops it is intended to support. All this stuff takes trial and error. How many armies in this world are still organized as they were in WWII, with regard to these things. NONE, ZERO, ZIPPO, which tells you that the original organizational construct was flawed.

MORE IS NOT BETTER, AT ANY LEVEL. ONLY BETTER IS BETTER.

[yanmacca]

I thought Clemons would have initially led a rifle platoon in the company or at best the company XO, as companies on paper were usually commanded by a captain, so I would have thought that this company had a captain when it left the states and he was either KIA or WIA or even sent home on leave.

I know things change in battle, in 1944 a German company would normally contain only one officer, the way they use to do it was that the officer led the first platoon, the company sergeant led the second platoon and the next ranking NCO led the third platoon.

[yanmacca]

To be honest here, I thought we were talking about Korea and I would expect that US Army organization differed little then what it did in WW2, please don't ask me what organization the armies of the world use now because it doesn't really interest me.

I would expect though that these days they would have some kind of wire or laser guided weapon.

[quincannon]

Clemmons, and I don't know how he came to command Company K, commanded Company K. He was not a platoon leader. He was the company commander. Throw the TO&E away.

Company commanders, position themselves in combat where they can best control the action. Just because Clemmons decided to move with one platoon, shows you nothing more than that is where he thought he needed to be. It does not mean he was in command of that platoon. He was commanding all of his platoons.

You will also recall that there was another First Lieutenant that was his XO, the Japanese American fellow. I do not recall if his platoons were led by other commissioned officers or not. If they were not that is not at all that unusual either. Probably half the platoons that were in Korea were commanded by sergeants at any one given time.

The TO&E is only a guide. It contains what a unit should have, and the should have stops, and the does have starts about a second after the first shot is fired. Actually if Company K had 135 effectives at that period of the war, they were probably fortunate. Most rifle companies at that time were lucky if they could field 100 U S personnel, when the TO&E called for 180 plus.

In you example of the German army Ian, if the one officer was commanding the first platoon, who in the hell was commanding the frigging company? You cannot do both.

[yanmacca]

Well it was a bloke called Dave Nash who wrote that German company not me, obviously in battle he led the first platoon, probably in the same way Clemons did at Pork Chop, he probably had the company radio man with him too and used runners to keep in touch with his other platoons, but hell I don't know.

Got to go to work now, had enough!

[quincannon]

Ian: World War II was a transitional period, where all kinds of organizations were tried out. Some of them worked out pretty well and others failed miserably. Korea was also in a transitional period, where the lessons learned from WWII were again tried out, and many of the things we thought we had learned from WWII were still found to be in error and wanting. So we, in fact everyone, changed again until we got it right.

The lesson here is that you cannot dwell on the organizational constructs of one seven year period. A lot of the organizations that all of us used, yours, mine, and theirs were really piles of shit in greensand grays. None of them were all that great. So what armies do is hopefully learn from their mistakes and are in a continual state of change.

I will give you but one example from your own army. In 1941 the British armored brigade consisted of three armored regiments (US battalions) nothing more. It was an absolutely crummy organization. It had a hell of a lot of tanks, which I guess is a good thing, but it lacked everything else, like Infantry for instance.

By 1942, those armored brigades, had become brigade groups, incorporating more in the way of supporting arms, and some services. Still they did not operate as a combined arms team that took maximum advantage of what they had. There was a lot of cultural problems within your own army that prevented this, and it serves no purpose in going into that here. Now fast forward to 1991, the Gulf War, and the organizational construct of your7th Armored Brigade. After fifty years they got it right. It takes time, and in some, actually most case in all armies, it is not only a matter of organizational but also cultural change.

Do not, never, think that what you see, as you concentrate your own efforts on the WWII period as I know you do, think that what they did was the best, the only, or the ultimate right way things should be done. Ninety percent of the time they were not.

[quincannon]

Ian: Clemmons did not leading a platoon at Pork Chop Hill he commanded a company.

I don't know if your information on a typical German company is correct or not. I highly suspect it is not.

Company commanders  control, and command all of their platoons. not just one. It was not at all uncommon during WWII for there to be only one officer in a company, the company commander. Some companies were even commanded by NCO's for short periods, due to combat losses. 

The one thing you will not find though is company commanders, leading platoons, when they are company commanders. They may be with a platoon, they may travel with a platoon, they may be engaged in the same fight that a platoon is engaged in, but there is always someone else  leading (in command of) that platoon. for you cannot, CANNOT, be a platoon leader and command a company at the same time.

Look upon it this way. If your officer is leading a platoon, and commanding a company, there will inevitably be conflicts on his time. Who gets the majority of his time? If he spends time on the platoon then the command and control of his company suffers. If he spends the amount of time necessary to command his company, on commanding his company, then his platoon is effectively leaderless. Both of these positions are full time jobs. You cannot both rob Peter and pay Paul. The guy who sent you there to command expects you to command the whole, not part.

So you need to go back and find out if that is the way it actually was, before you go too far down that road with the information your friend provided you.

My guess is that your friend drew some erroneous conclusions.

You must also differentiate how the word LEAD is used in the various narratives. The word lead and leader are two different words in how the U S Army uses them. Lead speaks for itself, but leader, as in Platoon Leader is how we refer to the guy in command of a platoon. In the U S Army the lowest "commander" is at company or detachment level. Lower than that the word leader is used, squad leader, platoon leader. The USMC drops that down a notch and refers to platoon leaders as platoon commanders. Other armies do as well. So it could well be said, and accurately, that thus and so company commander was leading this or that platoon, meaning he was giving them his personal attention, but that DOES NOT MEAN that he was the platoon leader. Words and how they are used matter.

[quincannon]

Ian: What I am going to suggest is that you get your copy of Company Commander out again and reread it.

This time concentrate not on the story, but on how MacDonald operates, how he exercises command of the two companies he is in command of over the course of the book. Remember that MacDonald could just as easily have been First Lieutenant MacDonald instead of Captain, and still commanded that company.

The story that lies beneath the story of the narrative is what makes that book so valuable as a textbook on company level command. That is why it has been continuously read by young officers in preparation for company command. What he does in 44 and 45 are essentially the same techniques used today. A modern version of Company Commander is Team Yankee by Harold Coyle. He goes over the same ground in a tank-mechanized Infantry team environment. His book too is more valuable as a textbook than for just the story.

The two books looked at and read in that manner will give you the insights that you seek, and clear up misunderstandings that you have. Then transpose those lessons on to any army you wish to in the western world in the twentieth and twenty first centuries and you will undertand how they do things.

[benteen]

Very informative thread I appreciate you starting it. I have a question.

I know that  2nd Lts to Captain are company grade, Major to Colonel are field grade Officers, I know nothing about Warrant Officers other than I had to salute them. What are they, what is their function, where do they fit in the pecking order of co grade or field grade.

Be Well
Dan

[quincannon]

I am not so sure WO's wish to be understood. Their status also changed a bit since I retired. So what I am about to say concerning their current status needs fact checking a bit.

Warrant officers are specialist officers. You find them most in Administration, special operations, and maintenance fields, along with their main area now which is aviation.

Most Army pilots are Warrant Officers. Their pay in Warrant Grades 1 thru 5 mirrors that of O-1 (Second Lieutenant) to O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel). They stay within their fields throughout their career, that meaning a WO pilot would not normally leave being a pilot for a staff assignment, as would a commissioned officer.

Since I retired there have been some changes. Warrant officers were not considered to have a commission. Previously their status was by warrant (thus the name).  Today that warrant has been replaced by a commission. Frankly I see no difference other than the title on the top of the parchment. Under certain circumstances they can now command, although a CWO5 is still a subordinate of a Second Lieutenant. Most company grade and junior field grade officers though, understand that this guy is a warrant because of his in the field expertise and listen very carefully when they speak. Just as I was about to retire they added a grade CWO5. Previously there had been only WO1, and CWO2 thru 4.

Bottom line though say in aviation is a WO aviator is a professional pilot, while a commissioned officer aviator is a commissioned officer first and an aviator second,

Sort of the same way with Special Forces. Back in the day an SFOD would be commanded by a Captain, with a Lieutenant as the SFOD XO. Putting a relatively fresh lieutenant into an SFOD XO slot was proven to be something like giving an eighteen month old baby a box of crayons, locking him in a room, and coming back expecting to find your walls white and pristine as when you left. Not necessarily a great idea. So, I don't know, twenty five or so years ago the XO slot in the SFOD - A became a slot for Warrant Officers, them having been drawn from the ranks of long serving SF soldiers. Montrose can probably refine those details for you.

Warrant Officers in the British and Commonwealth Armies are what we would refer to as top three graders in the enlisted ranks. They are probably more similar to E-7 thru E-9 Chiefs in the Navy. They have a different uniform, and take upon themselves godlike aura.  Completely different concept than in the Army or USMC.

Company Grade Officers: When a guy comes out of the basic course in theory he is fully qualified to be a platoon leader, but is expected also to have the tools necessary to be able to be a company XO, or company commander if need be.

The career course in your particular branch polishes the skills you learned in the basic course, and the experience you gained on the job, but in theory a sharp guy like Colt fresh out of the basic course at Knox, could report to his first battalion, have his commander say surprise you are now in command of Company B, and he would be expected to be able to handle the job. That is not ideal of course but it does happen especially in war time. There are never enough people in the appropriate grade to fill all the slots the grade indicated on the TO&E call for.

When I commanded a rifle company I was a First Lieutenant for 90% of my command tour. I only made Captain in the closing months. I did not have enough time in grade to be promoted before then. That promotion came before I attended the advanced (now career) course. My XO was a 1LT, and three of my platoon leaders were 2LT's. My weapons platoon was commanded by an E-7.Normally I would have given priority to fill that weapons platoon slot with a commissioned officer. The E-7 had so much experience with mortars though it would have been a crime to do otherwise. Never regretted it.

The TO&E is only a guide which specifies what a type unit should have, not what it does have, and often there are very sharp differences.

Does that answer your questions?

[benteen]

Mar 3, 2017 23:30:01 GMT quincannon said:

Does that answer your questions?

Yes it does Colonel. More than I expected or could ask for. Thank you for the in dept answer, I appreciate it.

Be Well
Dan

[quincannon]

Please do not call me Colonel. Technically I am that rank on the retired list, actually Lieutenant Colonel, but here I prefer Quincannon, or my real name. My rank here is "Poster" nothing else.

I am happy to have been of service

[yanmacca]

Dan my dad was a Warrant officer Class II in the Royal Artillery, which in the British army means he was a Battery or Battalion Sergeant Major, so here is a British LAA Battery around this period;

Battery HQ
3 x Officers
2 x NCOs (one being my Father)
45 x Other Ranks

3 x 40mm Bofors Troops [each Troop containing]
Troop HQ
6 x 40mm Bofors + Tractors
3 x Officers
7 x NCOs
82 x Other Ranks

So in effect my father was the senior NCO over 292 men.

If he would have stayed on in the army, he would have ended up being a WO I, which meant that he was a Regimental Sergeant Major, which would have be a huge post to fill, he had to leave because my mother had nine kids and she only saw him once a week, but I always wondered if he regretted not staying on, I never had the chance to ask him this of course, but I wonder?

[yanmacca]

Chuck, I have no problem over a Lieutenant commanding a company, things happen in the field, all I was questioning was that on paper a captain commands a company and that’s all, we have seen just by looking at the 7th cavalry that 1st or 2nd Lieutenants can lead companies, when on paper it should be a captain.

I know that WW2 was a transitional period, WW1 was too, and that’s why I initially based my web site to cover this period, because in my opinion this was a time when armies really grew and weaponry changed.

One to point out is that in the period up to late 1940, no infantry battalion in world was issued with sub-machine guns, as a standard rifle battalion was just that, “rifle” plus light machine guns and light mortars. I think I could right in saying that the first country to use sub-machine guns at this level was the Finns, as they had their own Suomi KP/-31 SMG, which impressed the Soviets so much that by late 1940 they issued their own PPD-40 SMG to infantry companies.

So what do have here, well that means that every nation in Europe plus Japan, equipped their infantry with bolt-actioned rifles, LMGs and light mortars (45mm to 50mm). Now these battalion had little communication equipment, some of them only had radios had battalion level, which could leave these units vulnerable if attacked, that’s why they had artillery pieces at lower level, because their own artillery was never just a phone call away. Not every country was as fortunate as the US Army as we know how good their fire control was plus they were equipped with modern howitzers and along with the British fully motorized, but everyone else still relied on horses and antiquated fire control.

This concept was used right through WW2 by many nations, because at times infantry battalions were on their own, so they took their own support with them. This support did differ from country to country, but what they wanted was a light, mobile weapon capable of being man handled by the troops and being capable of indirect and direct fire plus have anti-tank qualities. These weapons didn’t have to be high calibre because tanks around this period were not that well armoured, just read about how the Germans were concerned about the way the Polish knocked out nearly 1000 of their armoured vehicles in 1939.

One of the reasons I mentioned about light field pieces at regimental level is the role they played with the US Airborne at Bastogne, they had four field artillery battalions, two Parachute [377th & 463rd] and two Glider [321st & 907th] and all of these were equipped with 75mm pack howitzers and these made a good account for themselves even when faced with German armour. So having these super light guns available at this level would be an asset during this period.

That’s why you see these weapons appearing as the war went on, they call them infantry guns which fired HE and AP rounds.
So at the end of the war these infantry gun units were obsolete, because of the invention of the RPG or bazooka and the addition of super heavy tanks, but during the 1930s and the early years of WW2, it was the only support many infantry battalions had, because their fire control was poor and many of their artillery pieces dated back to WW1.

[quincannon]

Ian:

Paper is paper, and reality is reality. Paper says what something should look like. Reality addresses what it does look like.

I do not know what Armies you are talking about Ian, not having sub-machine guns at battalion and company level, but it is not the U S Army, and the last I looked we were in the world. We had them as far back as just post WWI. We also had automatic rifles integrated into our units from WWI on.

The only reason we used pack howitzer is that the larger weapons could not be air dropped from either a C46 or C47. That all changed when we got the C82 and a year or two later the C119. Those airborne divisions also had one for one replacements of 105mm available to them for their 75mm should they ever be committed to periods of sustained ground combat, not involving an air drop.

American artillery was the best in the world, not because of our guns or gunners. It was the best in the world because of its far superior to anyone else's fire direction and control and the communications systems that supported it. NOBODY had the stuff and systems we had.

When you do not have the stuff or the system, you must make up for those shortfalls somehow. In most cases that somehow was pushing the guns down closer to the user.

To understand why armies do the things they do, and can do the things they do, you must first understand the culture from which they come. You must also understand the capacity of their industry that sustains an army

Look for instance at the German culture. To the German if something can be designed adequately with three parts, then they will use six. They will refine the product to a state of perfection, when all that is necessary is good enough. That is a weakness that can be exploited, and it is a cultural weakness.

Look at German industrial capacity and availability of raw materials within their borders. Because of a lack of capacity they made the decision to concentrate mechanization within a relatively  few panzer divisions, leaving the rest of what they had, the bulk of their army to sustain itself in basically the same way it had been done since before the time of Christ. You don't think they used horses because they wanted to do you? That is a weakness that can be exploited.

The American Army is the product of God's accident. It seemed He dumped within our borders all that was necessary for us to defend ourselves in the most modern up to date manner, not break sweat, and not deprive our people. We are fortunate.