|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Jul 15, 2017 11:02:15 GMT
Beth, Some call W.P. Hudson High, yes it is a college/university. But, in reality it is notching more than a prep school. Those who graduate and think they have arrived tend to fail.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 15, 2017 12:52:17 GMT
Did Custer or Cook ever say to Reno that he was the advance guard? On the advance down Reno creek, Reno’s column was behind and to the left of Custer’s, later when Reno was riding with his column, he was joined by Cook and Keogh and Cook said that “we are all going with the advance and Myles Keogh is coming too”
From the divide to his crossing at ford A, Reno received three orders from Custer and as far as I can see, none mention anything about being an advanced guard. Perhaps in Custer’s mind, the time had passed for things like advanced guard and reconnaissance, because he could not be using Reno as an advanced guard if he was not behind him or even in supporting distance and by that time any reconnaissance was restricted to either a few troops ahead of the columns or a few Indians.
The fact that they ditched any more recon and fancy formations, may be down to Custer believing that the village was closer than it actually was and that both he and Reno would soon be pitching in to the village together but from different directions so both were considered as attacking columns, but he misjudge the distances involved which came more clear when he got to view the valley and village from the bluffs.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2017 14:10:05 GMT
There was a different formation transiting the area of Reno Creek. They were in two parallel columns to provide mutual security.
Subsequently.
Yes he did say it and it was contained in the words - move as fast as you can, charge them, bring them to battle, you will be supported.
That constitutes a fragmentary order to conduct an advance guard mission.
Those words are completely sufficient enough to enable a commander given that mission to execute his assignment in expectation of him bringing the enemy to battle and developing the situation. They were also sufficient for that advance guard commander to realize the potential for being flanked as he developed the situation in light of the fact that he may facing a larger force than his own. It is for that very reason that the advance guard expects to be supported by the main body coming up, assail those who try to flank the advanced guard, and turn their flanking movement into a much stronger flanking movement of their own, then take over the conduct of the battle from the advanced guard, or add the weight of the advanced guard back into the combat power of the main body.
Anything that happened before those words were spoken, and any previous formation they were in is totally irrelevant and immaterial.
We expect commanders when given fragmentary orders such as these, to fall back on doctrine and their own training as a guide as to what to do, and not to require explicit instructions on what is routine. Were I a platoon leader and Kevin one of my fire team leaders, my orders to him may be - Tyree get out front of me with your team to my front. I will follow. If you get in trouble, I'll be there. That is all Kevin would need. He knows what I expect. He knows how to do it. He knows where I am, and knows I am not going to leave him hanging. Simple, direct, and everyone knows what to do.
The apples of what transpired in the movement down Reno Creek have no bearing whatsoever on the oranges of the orders Reno received to formulate and conduct an advance guard mission across Ford A and in pursuit of Indians, detected who were then on the move northward.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 15, 2017 15:22:49 GMT
I would agree that Reno was ahead of Custer in the valley and thus deemed as the advanced guard, now Reno knew he was in the lead and also knew what Cook said, so probably even in his own mind he would consider himself to be the advanced guard. But did Custer consider him to be? I would say that in GACs mind, Reno was nobody's guard and was a fully fledged attack formation, which up to that point was on its own [remember Benteen was not in the frame as yet]. So I think the term advanced guard is a valid but only in Reno's mind and not GACs, especially once Reno crossed at ford A and Custer mounted the bluffs, because there was a void behind Reno which Custer had made no provision to fill.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 15, 2017 15:35:12 GMT
Chuck, if you gave Kevin an order to take his platoon up front and say that you will be behind, then Kev would certainly think that you have given him and his the platoon the honor of leading the company advance, thus the advance guard, but if you then leave Kev and his men and divert yourself and your platoon plus weapons platoon [don't forget the third platoon was scouting the companies left flank] off to the right and don't tell him, then this too has a name and its not "to support the advanced guard", it is called "leaving Kevin in the lurch"
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2017 15:53:44 GMT
Two answers.
Of course Custer looked upon Reno as his advanced guard. There is no escaping it. He said you will be supported. Those words tell the tale. Nothing else need be said. The fact that Custer did not fulfill his stated obligation to his own advance guard tells you only that Custer was a dim whited shit ass.
Honor my ass. If I told Kevin to do just what I said above, he would think I am a no good peckerwood of a son of a bitch, but he would know what I wanted him to do and he would do it.
If I did not fulfill my obligations to him, being where I was needed, when I was needed, I would be a dim whited shit ass, and I am a lot of things, but a dim whited shit ass is not one of them. I fulfill my obligations.
You are trying to over engineer a steel ball here Ian. Reno had his orders, and the man who gave him those orders had an obligation to Reno. It is very simple. Nothing complicated about it. When Custer said he would support Reno he gave his word. He in effect lied to him. He did not keep his word.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 16:01:00 GMT
The issue is that LTC Custer disobeyed his OWN order. He was guilty of gross negligence, and would have been convicted by court martial for the second time for gross negligence, gross incompetence, and unfit for field grade officer commission.
The main body did not support the advance guard. Any forum devoted to LBH should have no more than ten threads. This ain't rocket science.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2017 16:13:05 GMT
Montrose is correct. Custer was in flagrant disobedience of his own orders for employing the Regiment (-).
Had he lived he could have been brought up on charges of both negligence and incompetence. His only defense possible is that there was some subsequent event occurring that made it impossible for him to carry out, what he had told Reno. We know that no subsequent event made that impossible. Therefore he would have been convicted of the charges placed against him, and punished as the court martial deemed appropriate.
When you give orders to someone, it is a two way street. They are obligated to you, and you are obligated to them.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2017 17:08:29 GMT
There are two incidents that I will relate that adequately address the principles that are in play here.
The time is late November-early December 1950. The place North Korea. The first is in the X Corps sector. The second is in the Eighth Army area.
When LTC Ray Davis was ordered to take his 1st Battalion, 7th Marines and become the advance guard for Litzenberg's 7th and Murray's 5th Marines and open the road from Yudam-ni to Hagaru-ri clearing Tokdong Pass, and relieve Fox/Seven, Davis had every expectation, being that he was going up against several Chinese divisions, that his advance guard mission would be supported by two regiments of United States Marines. Had they not, Davis, Fox/Seven, or anyone involved with the advanced guard effort would not have lived. What gave Davis the ability to accomplish the mission was those follow on forces of the main body that came behind, insuring that Davis was not cut off and surrounded.
At nearly the same time the 2nd Infantry Division was ordered to withdraw, through what became known as the Valley of Death. Two regiments, division troops, and DIVARTY entered the Valley of Death and were decimated. The Chinese blocked them from both front and rear, and were arrayed to both flanks. It was a miracle, in the most sacred use of the word, that any of them escaped with their lives. Meanwhile Paul Freeman's 23rd Regimental Combat Team was the division's rear guard. They were not trapped. They were not in the valley, but Freeman's orders were to follow the others, take the same route they took.
Freeman ignored his orders and withdrew another way. He reasoned that he could neither break through to the division, nor even if he did, do anything but get another regiment of U S Infantry trapped in the valley. He was on the verge of being court martialed for what he did and the decisions he made, until the totality of facts concerning the matter came into full light. Once they did no other mention of the matter, save in the history books were made, and Freeman went on to four stars, and a highly respected career.
I once worked for an officer who was George Peplo's (38th RCT) S-3, and fought with Peplo and the rest of the regimental staff behind trucks and overturned jeeps in the Valley of Death, and asked him about what Freeman did. He told me that he absolutely did the right thing, and the dummy that wanted to court martial him for it, was in fact responsible for what took place, and was looking for a scapegoat.
Both of these incidents tell what is expected of officers in command of troops. In the first Murray and Litzenberg lived up to their responsibility to support Davis with everything they had. There was no event that prevented them from doing so. They did not go off on some wild goose chase, and fail to fulfill the stated mission of "I will support you with the whole outfit". Freeman was prevented by the enemy from doing what he was told, and refused to sacrifice another regiment in blind obedience to orders. He knew full well that in doing what he did that there were many who would die, but he was not about to compound the error of his division commander, and sacrifice his command in what would have been vain effort.
This is what we expect, the judgment and responsibility of commanders to do. Custer failed in his responsibility to his own command for no reason whatsoever. He failed because he was incompetent to command.
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 15, 2017 18:51:52 GMT
I don't know why this didn't occur to me before now, but the term I was looking for is Movement to Contact. Custer's instructions to Reno sound a bit like a FRAGO for a Movement to Contact: "Go that way and attempt to establish contact with the enemy." Although that "on the jump" part does make it sound a bit like a pursuit also. The thing is, when I was a young fire team leader (sometimes acting squad leader), the lead fire team in a platoon movement to contact was about 50 meters ahead of the rest of the squad. If the lead fire team made contact with an LP/OP, the platoon leader did not just take the rest of the platoon and run off a-rightflanking and leave the lead fire team a-hanging out there figuring that it can handle one LP/OP by itself. Not before the PL determined whether or not the team in contact needed the rest of the squad, perhaps an attached MG team, or maybe even a second squad brought up to really get the enemy fixed.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Jul 15, 2017 19:31:54 GMT
Yes I know what you are all talking about, I am fully versed in all military manoeuvres and terms, but that is not the point here. Montrose is right, it is not rocket science but this whole campaign was a shambles and treated by those in command as a punitive mission with an air of arrogance and casualness.
Just today I read how Cook and Keogh were riding along with Reno as his men were about to cross at ford A, having a jolly laugh by the sounds of it.
But off course Reno was the advance guard, but only up to a point and that point ended when Custer turned right without ordering Benteen to fill in the void left by him moving up the bluffs. From that point on the Reno mission went from advanced guard to a full blown attack without any support from the rear, but the Reno knew nothing of the change of plan.
|
|
|
Post by sgttyree on Jul 15, 2017 19:56:39 GMT
Beth,
Some of the terms we use on this board to try and accurately describe events may have the unintended effect of adding to the confusion because many to the terms were not part of the military lexicon of that era. Reading documents from that era you might encounter a word like "retreat." And it might have been anything from a well ordered fighting withdrawal to a rout. Now terms like withdrawal under pressure, retrograde operation, etc. are used. And the same for attacks. When reading documents from that era, words like "charge" come up a lot for a unit that's attacking without a lot of explanation about different types of attacks.
I don't know if we are helping understanding or hindering it by applying modern terms to operations of that era. It helps me but I don't know if it helps everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2017 20:19:39 GMT
A few things to consider here:
1)Kevin the only difference as you know between that lead fire team you spoke of plus the rest of the platoon is the size of the forces involved in the valley, and the relative distance between the fire team and the platoon and the distance between Reno as the advanced guard and Custer with the main body. The principles otherwise are exactly the same,
2) The difference between an advanced guard in a movement to contact, and the advanced guard in a pursuit do not exist.
3) Beth, that is the very point, the mutually understood language. Had I, Montrose or anyone with any military experience been told those same things that Kevin outlines in his first post, What Cooke said to Reno, what Custer said in passing to Reno, they would have been understood just as Reno understood them. That goes for then. It goes for now.
4) The prerequisite for mansplaining is manhood.
5) Cooke is the way the man spelt his name, not Cook.
6) An air of arrogance and casualness - So what. What does arrogance and casualness have to do with how Reno received Custer's order. What does it have to do with the fact that Custer after giving the order failed to fulfill his part of the duty to Reno. That is not arrogance and casualness, That is incompetence and manifest dereliction of duty.
7) So what if Keogh and Cooke were riding along a short way with Reno laughing and yucking it up. Maybe they were telling each other dirty jokes. What does it have to do with how Reno received and interpreted his orders from Custer, and what does it have to do with Custer failing to fulfill his promise to support Reno as he said he would.
8)Reno was an advanced guard. According to his instructions he was THE advanced guard. He continued to act as the advance guard throughout the that portion of the fight. He based every one of his actions on being the advanced guard. Reno's mission did not transition to full blown attack at any point. He was developing the situation so that the main body could pass either through or around him an attack. Reno never knew of any change of mission. He did not know why Custer had not shown up. He did not see him on the bluffs, and probably had no knowledge of it until he was told later. Is there any proof that contradicts that? None to my knowledge.
People can only do what they are told to do. They can only expect what they are told to expect. There is nothing wrong with arrogance or casualness unless it effects your performance. There is nothing wrong with sharing a few laughs between friends. There was no change of mission as far as Reno knew.
What is wrong, it is always wrong, it will forever be wrong is telling your subordinate to do something, and he can expect this, that, or whatever, then fail to deliver the this, that, or whatever. It is an unforgivable breech of trust. It is incompetence, It is criminal level negligence. In this case it is criminal level homicide, caused by reckless indifference to human life.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 15, 2017 22:36:59 GMT
I regret I deleted the message about common jargon and mansplaining because I was in a rather rude in my tone. Mansplaining is term I shouldn't have use with friends except I am sure most of you have either experienced the person I was speaking about or know the behavior I am talking about. That person would even mansplain to men.
I think something that must be remembered is that just because someone doesn't have the jargon, does not mean that they are willing and able to learn--especially in this group where there is a common interest in a battle.
I also understand that they language might have evolved since 1876 because the military evolved, however some basic terms remain the same. Frankly if anything hopefully modern orders are more precise than Terry's rather Victorian orders.
Would there be enough discussion to justify a thread starting with perhaps Terry's orders and working our way down to Custer's final and inscrutable order.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 15, 2017 23:01:40 GMT
I think that any of who saw the post about mansplaining knew exactly who you were referring to Beth. That person does not have the capability of mansplaining to his mama why he left the toilet seat up. The cavalry colonel didn't tell him.
The language and terminology used in orders and military communication has evolved and will continue to evolve in the same manner language itself evolves. The phrase movement to contact for instance was probably unknown in Custer's time, but units in Custer's time did move to contact.
Attack in Custer's time meant essentially the same thing as it does now, any forward movement for offensive purposes. Today we would not use charge, but rather assault, both of which are the culmination point of any attack, the next to last act. You attack with the ultimate purpose of conducting an assault. Every attack does not culminate in an assault or charge though, so the two terms attack and charge/assault must always be used separately to clearly define the intended meaning. Custer attacked but he never assaulted.
All that said though it is safe to assume that contemporaries were fully aware of the meaning of language used during their time, especially professional language.
It is then up to the latter day observer to take the language of the period and translate it into its modern equivalent. Charge = assault. On the jump = move fast. Stand by to repel borders = Kick those dirty bastards off my ship etc.
If this is not done by those of us in a latter day, if the effort is not made, no real understanding of the intent of the word can be derived.
Personally I don't think such a thread is necessary, because it could not possibly cover all of the variances. I think though that everything could be covered as these things arise on a case by case basis.
|
|