mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 22, 2017 11:59:56 GMT
To be read in conjunction with the Custer took 5 companies thread. This is a part of the story that is difficult to resolve. Let me start by suggesting that Custer moved to the Ford D area as two "battalions" perhaps the HQ with E and F and Keogh with C,I, and L. Now I have no great logic for this but at this point wonder what others think. Cheers
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 22, 2017 13:10:14 GMT
I think that before you address this question, you must first review why a 19th Century regiment would create battalions in the first place.
The answer is to exercise command and control when that larger body, the regiment must be split in some manner that requires that command and control must be exercised over companies that were separated by time and space.
There was a reason therefore for creating a Reno and Benteen battalions, and there was also a reason for creating a logistical support battalion under MacDougal. Each of these elements was split in time and space by the scheme of maneuver.
There was no such requirement for the Custer battalion, that we know of or can know of. The optimal span of control is three, but having a span of control of five is both manageable and not unheard of. Splitting into two battalions meant Custer would make his job of commanding more difficult. Instead of a straight line command of one to five, there would be placed between two intermediate command elements that he would have to transmit orders through to reach the ultimate goal of commanding the shooters. Custer had a task organized headquarters element, that when you consider the orderlies attached could easily exercise command over five. Splitting into two battalions gave those two fellows who would become battalion commanders, no such command assets.
The only thing we know is that Custer went onto those bluffs with a five company battalion, and the headquarters assets to control them. Does that mean that he didn't further subdivide after going onto the bluffs? No it does not, BUT, there must be a logical reason for such subdivision, and I see none at all. Perhaps someone does, but I would like to hear and see how they reason that one out.
In short you subdivide into echelons for a reason, that being to better exercise command and control. When you do, you must also have the assets in place to command those you subdivide. Custer barely had enough to command five, and not enough to subdivide. Reno and Benteen had, next to zip with regard to command assets, and what you see post link up is the effective dissolving of the three battalions (Reno-Benteen-MacDougal), and from that point on operating as one.
As to the approach march to Ford D formation, it probably resembled an oval (when seen from above), then changed into a line, more than likely on the high ground above the ford. The order of companies from left to right is something I do not have a clue about, except to say, that I HIGHLY doubt if it was E and F on the left. If someone held a gun at my head and said you have to answer I think it would be:
Left E - C - L - I- F Right and I could easily see C and L exchanging places.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE the creation of the Keogh and Yates battalions is a 20th Century contrivance. They were found in two places therefore Custer must have subdivided into two battalions. Another piece of thinking worthy only of Captain Creep and his acolytes. Is there any contemporary to the time mention of two battalions existing, if there is I have never seen it, so you must be so good as to show me. Everything I have seen in print written by people who were there mention Custer's battalion. You will notice that battalion is singular, not plural.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 22, 2017 13:18:13 GMT
Mac, I can go with four and one in that four stayed together as a group and one company acted like a flank guard between the column and the river. Whether or not this unit had the ford on their to do list, I don’t know and it wouldn’t surprize me if this configuration was adopted as far back as the head of cedar coulee and this flanking company spent time in MTC.
So as far as I can gather none of these companies were in a battalion format when they died as each company succumbed more or less on their own. I know that the men of three different companies were found around Keogh, but this could have been more to do with circumstance rather than a military formation, as survivors would run to the nearest friendly unit and Keogh's men would attract any men who got close enough to join it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 22, 2017 13:43:08 GMT
What you suggest Ian is not inconsistent with my oval formation.
I would also think that if an oval was adopted it was done immediately after ascending to the bluffs. It would be a logical formation for all around security on the march, and further it is also completely consistent with engaging Wolf Tooth, probably at several different places as the marched northward by only a portion of those five companies as the evidence mentioned by Godfrey and the artifact finds of Weibert and others seem to suggest.
Dismiss forever more that regiments or portions thereof in combat march like that portrayed in a John Ford movie. It just ain't so.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 22, 2017 13:53:43 GMT
God Chuck, you have been saying that I take too much notice of Ford movies for years now, which is wrong, just I wish you would give me more respect then that, "please" because how can I convince poster that my web site is the real deal, when you keep labeling me as some guy who believes every thing shown on film is correct. An oval formation is being adopted here, so what is wrong with that ship [or company in our case] on the right from skirting the river.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 22, 2017 14:30:28 GMT
First off, the words I used were "Not inconsistent with" which means I agree with the idea that there would and should have been a company where you say they were. That company would be on the left though, as the river is on the left as you move northward.
That picture is posed. That formation used though differs from what would be used in combat only by the close proximity of the vessels to each other. In combat the formation would be the same, however the distances would be extended greatly to provide a three sixty degree arc around the carrier, affording the battle group protection against air and subsurface threats, with their sensors and weapons systems
Land forces adopt similar formations when in close proximity to the enemy the most common being the diamond, which actually appears to be more of an oval when seen from above. They do it for the very same reason. It does you no good to protect only one flank when the danger can appear from a three sixty degree arc. You must protect both flanks as well as front and rear.
I use John Ford movies for three reasons
First: Most people have never done this stuff. Therefore they view a John Ford movie and that is the idea planted in their minds about how it is done. Ford portrays a moving unit as if it were a bunch of ducks marching to a pond for a drink of water and a swim. Ford's impressions of fact are carried over into art work as well. I believe the cover of Wagner's book portrays one such. He told me that he intended to use a painting called, I believe "Keogh Comes Up", depicting a three company column moving across the prairie like a bunch of ducks without one care in the world.
Second: The Ford movies are a vehicle to illustrate visually what not to do.
Third: I do not write exclusively for only your consumption. Rather I write for all who read this site, in an attempt to educate them in the military arts and sciences, as much as my poor abilities to communicate will allow. The Ford movies provide a visual aid in that regard.
And Finally the word picture you built with your post has one company protecting the flank, and the other four together. What else am I to think? You did not tell me. The vision you build by your posts suggest that the other four companies were in column just like a John Ford movie. If that is not what you want me to think build a better and more comprehensive word picture. You must fully communicate what you mean, lest someone gets the wrong impression of that meaning.
Now if there are any lingering doubts in anyone's mind about John Ford movies and why you don't do things the way they are depicted in them, may I suggest that you fully research what happened in the following three examples to units that used column formations in the close proximity to the enemy
1) Braddock on the road to Fort Pitt.
2) Mobile Group 100 in the Central Highlands of Indo China 1954
3) 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry on the trail from LZ Xray to LZ Albany November 1965
Do so and you will once and for all be cured of Ford Disease. If you're still not convinced read about Oriskany.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 22, 2017 17:27:45 GMT
Mac:
The formation used on the approach march to Ford D is a very important factor in determining how forces would be arrayed for the final assault phase.
Visualize a diamond pattern.
At the head of the diamond would be Company F (There is some little evidence that Company F was in the lead)
On the right flank would be Company I, protecting the battalion from the eastward approach.
On the left flank would be Company E, protecting the battalion from the westward (river side) approach.
In the rear would be Company L, acting as rear guard.
In the center would be the Headquarters element and Company C.
When deploying from that formation into line then it would be fairly easy for Companies E and F to form the left and right of the line, while the other three came from their respective positions to fill in the middle.
I think it also possible that Company C and L could have easily exchanged the positions that I have them in, C being the rear guard, and L being in the middle. It could, or might also explain why Kanipe may have been the original messenger. Theorize with me that the battalion continued to move as Custer went to his point of observation in the valley. Upon returning he comes across his brother in the rear first. Tom send a message back to the trains. Later he rejoins his headquarters, tells Cooke to send a message to Benteen.
Keep in mind here that these company sized elements would be separated from each other in this diamond by at least 200 meters, and probably more, which would make the total formation something around six to eight hundred meters in length, and four to six hundred meters in width as they moved or more.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Apr 22, 2017 18:54:27 GMT
But that is it, I said four and one, but I never said anything about them all being in column or line or even fours or twos, you assumed that. If Mac stated that he wanted to know the formation that they moved in, then I probably wouldn't of answered.
I still think that some of Custer's men were further down MTC then we think and the rest were on the ridges behind, but the few that were in the coulee, soon moved up to higher ground to their left, but we have discussed this before and if I can recall I even made a map that corresponds with some of the stuff Steve posted.
In your post above you mention a diamond shape with units no nearer then 200 metres apart, but would the ground behind battle ridge be able to accommodate this formation? as Godfrey never mentions anything like a diamond formation only a trail.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 22, 2017 19:41:28 GMT
When you do not fully explain what you meant, then assume is all you can do.
The only reason that one would use a column during an approach march when contact with the enemy is imminent and can be expected at any moment is when you have no other choice. If you have no other choice then it is best not to use that route in the first place
Godfrey never mentions a lot of things. He saw a trail, and made note of it. He does not say if that trail was used by forty horses or four hundred, only that it was a trail, and the fact that he concluded it was Custer's trail leads you to believe it was a trail made by shod horses. He discovered only one trail, but that does not mean that there were not three or four others that he did not see heading in the same direction, from which we could conclude what formation Custer adopted. It is indeed a wonder to me that Godfrey could discover that one trail, considering how much traffic was through that same area in the hours and days that followed.
The terrain would accommodate a diamond formation or any of the several variations of that formation.
The map and Steve's discussion is completely consistent with a diamond or any other formation that was spread out and accounted for all around security.
Another reason for spreading your formation out, other than security is to lower the signature of the battalion, and give a break to both your soldiers and their mounts. Had you ever marched in tactical column down a narrow sandy trail in South Carolina or Georgia, or even the trail over the prairie on the other side of my back fence, you would be choking to death from the dust after a hundred yards. When you spread out on the march over a wider area it will not eliminate the problem, but it does mitigate it and make it easier, and your adversary will not see you coming from 50 miles away. A mile or so maybe, but not fifty. The more you spread the less signature you leave. The less signature you leave, the less likely you are to be detected.
In all your reading you must remember that by and large the people writing about this were pros. They wrote in the language they understood, and as such most likely left out a lot of details, that to them was just as natural as blowing your nose or wiping your butt. In other words when you write - I sneezed - one can visualize what was associated with it, and what came next. The writer does not need to explain it to someone who has sneezed. Same thing for a soldier. Formation selection is a function of terrain and security while transiting terrain. It is not something considered worthy of discussion between soldiers, because of the mutual understanding they have and the training they have received.
On the other hand the average civilian with no military training is told that Custer took this trail or this route and they envision a line of units playing follow the leader. THAT NOTION IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DISPELL.
You cannot talk tactics, or routes, or terrain, or trails, unless you can talk formations and how and where they are used. If one does not understand formations, and when and where how to use what, they cannot understand battle itself.
Another thing when selecting formation is that the formation you select must be able to transform itself with ease into another as the situation changes. You use one formation when moving to contact, that must easily transform itself into a formation used while in contact. Choose the wrong one for your approach, then someone is going to stick a bayonet up your ass when contact is made. Everything is interrelated.
It is all well and good to understand how units are constructed and how they are equipped. That is a field of study on its own. But having said that, if one does not understand how these things are used in battle one's military education is only half complete.
Tactics are simple. Tactics means to arrange, but before you know arrangement, one must know how to go about arranging.
|
|
benteen
First Lieutenant
"Once An Eagle
Posts: 406
|
Post by benteen on Apr 22, 2017 21:09:33 GMT
On the other hand the average civilian with no military training is told that Custer took this trail or this route and they envision a line of units playing follow the leader. THAT NOTION IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO DISPELL. Another thing when selecting formation is that the formation you select must be able to transform itself with ease into another as the situation changes. You use one formation when moving to contact, that must easily transform itself into a formation used while in contact. Choose the wrong one for your approach, then someone is going to stick a bayonet up your ass when contact is made. Everything is interrelated. Quincannon, I appreciate your taking the time on a daily basis to educate us on the military. I agree with your statements on formations and the reasons for doing them. However, If I may, I believe you left out the fact that in order to transform itself with ease into another requires training, which from everything I have read about these soldiers, they had little or no training. Certainly none as a regiment. It did not seem to be important to Custer as he was rarely with them. So what I am saying is that although it would not be prudent, I dont think that it is impossible that they would be in a line formation as that did not need any training, just follow the guy in front of you. Yes, it would be uncomfortable eating dust, but I dont see anywhere that the comfort of his men was a major concern for him. Just a thought. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 22, 2017 21:51:31 GMT
I don't think you mean line. I think you mean column.
I don't gives a rats ass if they are comfortable or not. If they wanted to be comfortable they should have stayed civilians. I care about security on the march, reducing their signature, keeping them alive, and killing the other guy. If I can make it a little easier to endure. that is a benefit, not a necessity.
Who would choose the formation to be used, trained officers or admittedly undertrained enlisted soldiers?
When I say a diamond formation, that means that every point of the diamond is still in a column, only it is a company column. As such any company so arrayed can do a left or right flank march and be in line of battle in seconds.
You must also recall that in that day the company formations and movements used on the parade ground were the same company formations and movements used in combat. Now are you saying they could not drill? There was no such thing in those days such as squad column, fire teams in column (or abreast) or squads moving by bounds using overwatch, which do require a lot of training to execute properly.
If say, the threat appears from the right, the right flank company guarding that flank does a right flank march and they are in line addressing that threat. If they can handle it, like say a Wolf Tooth incursion, then they defeat the threat, turn and start forward again. If not they form a basis upon which the battalion can form up to face the enemy.
Recall how Custer split his force into two parallel columns as he came down from the divide. That split was for purposes of the mutual security of both columns. The idea is that in taking these measures and enemy can not hit the whole column at once. The portion that is not hit comes to the aid of those that are.
Now if he took that precaution before contact was imminent, you would assume that he would take similar precautions when he was moving northward with the enemy in sight. He was a moron, but that does not mean he was stupid.
Maybe he did not use a diamond. I don't know, nor can I know, nor anyone else. He could have maintained the two parallel column approach, two on one side, three on the other. It would accomplish almost the same thing. My guess was the diamond because that is the best formation to provide security while reducing signature as much as you can.
Nice try Benteen, but Custer is not the root of all evil.
Let me suggest you visit Oriskany State Park. It is not all that far from where you live. If you are not familiar with the battle it was the one portrayed in John Ford's movie "Drums Along The Mohawk". Although you don't see the battle in the movie, you see the aftermath, and from that you can get a pretty good picture of what happened. You can still follow the battle, and the terrain has not changed that much in 240 years. Then you will see what happens to units that pay no attention to march security.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 23, 2017 1:17:15 GMT
I am curious Benteen. When you moved through the bush, realizing that you were compensating for the terrain you moved in, close and restricted, as opposed to open like at LBH what formations did you use? I would suspect you had a point, a rear, and someone(s) beating the bush to your flanks. If so that would be the equivalent to a diamond at your particular level, which was at squad.
That is how I was trained as a squad leader, and at platoon and company I only moved that same technique up the appropriate levels.
In particularly heavy wooded areas, instead of flankers I would clover leaf every so often.
The end result is that I was seeing to my security in all four cardinal directions of travel.
My bet is that you did the same, so for me it is a real stretch that George Custer, a century before, did not employ these same methods, methods that were taught to us by the Roman Legions, and passed down through the centuries.
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 23, 2017 12:22:40 GMT
Mac: The formation used on the approach march to Ford D is a very important factor in determining how forces would be arrayed for the final assault phase. Visualize a diamond pattern. At the head of the diamond would be Company F (There is some little evidence that Company F was in the lead) On the right flank would be Company I, protecting the battalion from the eastward approach. On the left flank would be Company E, protecting the battalion from the westward (river side) approach. In the rear would be Company L, acting as rear guard. In the center would be the Headquarters element and Company C. When deploying from that formation into line then it would be fairly easy for Companies E and F to form the left and right of the line, while the other three came from their respective positions to fill in the middle. I think it also possible that Company C and L could have easily exchanged the positions that I have them in, C being the rear guard, and L being in the middle. It could, or might also explain why Kanipe may have been the original messenger. Theorize with me that the battalion continued to move as Custer went to his point of observation in the valley. Upon returning he comes across his brother in the rear first. Tom send a message back to the trains. Later he rejoins his headquarters, tells Cooke to send a message to Benteen. Keep in mind here that these company sized elements would be separated from each other in this diamond by at least 200 meters, and probably more, which would make the total formation something around six to eight hundred meters in length, and four to six hundred meters in width as they moved or more. Thank you all! I was thinking that there would be a security formation used and the diamond theory is most illuminating. Also I did foresee that the arrival formation impacts on the later positioning. We know there is archaeological evidence for action out as far as the highway and the trading post. I did sit in the car park at the trading post contemplating the hills there, which we describe as Battle Ridge Extension. In the approach down to the valley and the Fords, I picture elements moving down the dry watercourse between BRE and Cemetery Ridge, as well as out along BRE and down near the Trading Post. When you refer to "the line" is that an approach formation or the final line in the valley for the assault? The part about Kanipe is one of those wonderful products of this theory that, although completely unprovable, do just seem to "fit". Cheers
|
|
azranger
Brigadier General
Ranger
Posts: 1,824
|
Post by azranger on Apr 23, 2017 12:58:52 GMT
Interesting discussion. So when Clair suggests that Reno erred in not using a column to approach to the Big Village that would be a John Ford approach?
Myself I would like a line because you are driving the running Indians. Also it presents a larger front from which the main body could have been obscured if they had followed Reno.
Last but not least is that they were moving at speed and it was not the plowed fields as they are today. The dust factor for a column would have to obscure footing for the horses and some of the shrubs could have an affect on the horses.
Just finished teaching an class for law enforcement officers and the use of a personal watercraft. It's a hard job but someone has to do it. What is thought provoking is that I will not be around most likely when some of these new officers reach thier 25 year retirement.
Regards
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 23, 2017 14:02:41 GMT
Mac, I will take your post and Steve's one at a time.
Mac: As the battalion moved in a diamond, those companies would have been in company column. To form a line for the assault (remember line give you maximum firepower forward on a broad front) the would have gone to the high ground of CR and BRE still in company column by multiple routes the dry water course between CR and BRE being the route for one or two of them, the others by different routes. Upon reaching the high ground they would have come into a company line, all of them therefore forming a battalion line across those ridge tops. That point, the ridge tops would be what we would call today the line of deployment. Had they preplanned that place in advance, and I am sure they would have after seeing the terrain from some little distance, that same place would have been called the probable line of deployment (the place where you expect to deploy). From that point on they would be in an assault formation moving forward with maximum firepower to the front.
I should mention that battalion and company PLD's are different places. In this instance the battalion PLD is the point where the individual companies started moving out of the diamond formation and onto the ridge tops. The company PLD's were the places they came out of column into line.
Steve: Clair is not altogether wrong, nor is he completely specific. He would be completely wrong if he is suggesting that Reno's battalion stayed in the battalion column for the assault phase, Recall Fort Apache, Thursday stayed in battalion column as he assaulted that canyon, The narrowness of the canyon precluded using a line. He was warned by Captain Yorke not to do it. Yorke was correct. Having only a battalion column available to use in that terrain the assault should never have been made, nor should Thursday gone anywhere near that canyon. Each of the four examples I gave earlier, Braddock, Mobile Group 100, 2-7 Cavalry, and Oriskany passed through similar terrain with similar results.
In my estimation the best formation for Reno to have used is the battalion V. He should have crossed the river in a battalion column. After crossing he should have adopted the battalion V for the approach march. Each of his companies would remain in company column, position on the three points of the V. He should have stayed that way as he moved down the valley, and not had his lead two companies form a line until he could see those Indians coming out to meet him. At that point the third company remains in column, until the situation clarifies itself, then move to the greatest place of need, still in column, shaking itself into line at some point in the move forward, but before they contacted of the other two companies then in line.
I suppose I must be in agreement with Clair on one point though. Reno moved into a two company battalion line too early in the game. By doing so he lost some of the ease of control a column gives you, and made his job a bit harder in controlling a line.
Moving from column to line, has no dismounted parade ground direct equivalent like a right or left flank march. The command is right or left into line, and a bit of training (not all that much) brings a company on line within a few seconds. The difference between right or left, is that the company commander and guidon provides the base of maneuver, and the company forms to the right or left of that base as directed.
|
|