Maybe Custer's route, or there again maybe not?

[yanmacca]

Feb 20, 2018 2:10:19 GMT quincannon said:

Custer divided his force into THREE combat maneuver battalions. ONLY THREE. The operative words are COMBAT MANEUVER BATTALIONS unless you have ever seen anything in a tactical manual that describes pack trains and their guard in the attack. Company B was useless as a maneuver force. Those that tell you that Custer had four combat maneuver battalions, DO NOT KNOW THEIR ASS FROM FIRST BASE. That does not mean that he didn't divide his force four ways. He did

Bloody hell Chuck, I know that the pack train was not a combat unit, but many describe it as a battalion. Good god man, what do you take me for, I would be a military airhead if I thought that this train was a offensive formation.

I would guess that Capt. MacDougal  would be in command, but Custer put 1st Lt. Mathey in charge of the packs, so it had a captain in charge, which was par for the course for a battalion that day.

I would also add that the pack train detachment [train & Co B] would not be used in any offensive actions, Company B would not leave the train and join in the battle because it was acting in an escort role.

This does not mean that the pack train didn't have teeth and for a while it was left to fend for itself with the three combat battalions out on missions.
The best they could have hoped for if attacked, was to go to ground and defend the packs until help arrived.

The problem with mobile units is that each trooper had a max of 100 rounds on both his person and his horse, this means that they need a supply of ammo close by and looking at the size of the village, Custer knew that his men and the other battalions would need ammunition pretty quick if the got involved in a prolonged fire fight, just as Reno's men did when troopers were using reserve ammo from their saddle bags.

One of the ways around this would be to drop the main pack train and leave it well out of the battle zone and bring along the ammo mules with B Company as an escort, or give each battalion a couple of ammo packed mules.

[quincannon]

What "many" describe does not matter. What you describe matters. You are not many. You are you. As such you know more than the average person who reads this stuff. "Many" is another of those "Some Say" words. "Many" and "Some" may be a bunch of snotty nosed blithering idiots for all either of us know. You on the other hand are not. I do not give a rat's behind what "Many" or "Some" have to say, and neither should you. It is important the we, you and I, give our opinions, not those of some unknowns who may still be playing with crayons and reading comic books. 

You and I do not write for you and I. We write for the people who read us. Therefore I may fully understand what you mean, but unless everyone has that same understanding, we have failed in one of our missions which is to educate.

It would be perfectly proper to describe the way Custer apportioned his forces, by saying he formed three combat battalions and regimental trains. It would be perfectly proper to say, he formed three battalions and a logistical support element. There are probably two or three more perfectly acceptable variations as well that convey the proper intended meaning to anyone that reads the post. You and I have a great advantage over most people who come here. We must use that advantage to their advantage, or we might as well go home for all the good we may do. 

The way to solve the problem is to build each of your companies back to strength with those that were detailed to the trains from those companies, add Company B to the Custer battalion. or wherever it was thought necessary for them to be, and then establish a combat trains per battalion or per company, with ammunition and medical supplies carried on a relatively few mules, and leave the rest behind. A service company, the World War II version of Custer's pack trains were often ten to fifteen miles behind the combat echelon, yet ammunition resupply was not much of a problem. This is very old ground.

As to the combat potential of Company B and the detailed pack guards. Something that may look like a battalion in numbers alone must have mission potential. What would you rather have in a fight a group of a hundred detailed men with no internal organization or a rifle company efficiently led of three organized combat platoons? What is the mission of those men, is it fighting, or is it insuring that those trains get where they are needed? You cannot do both.

What is the root and origin of the word battalion? Battaglione the Italian word for battalion has its root in Battaglia meaning battle.  Words matter. When you use the word battalion 95 percent of those who read us take the word at its root meaning - an organization designed for battle. What they envision is often not what you and I may mean to convey. There is also the matter of the basic definition of a battalion which is two or more companies. In this instance the word companies is also very important in that it illuminates the fact that a battalion is organized for combat in that there is a superior headquarters with two or more subordinate headquarters.

[azranger]

I am confused now. What is a transportation battalion?

 I thought one of the differences with pack trains between Crook and Custer was dedicated soldier force to the regimental mules and a constant training and use of the mules as compared to taking from regimental company strength and the conversion of wagon mules to pack train use.

So is part of leaving them behind for Custer decision making was that he knew the pack train had not functioned on their own. Do we have any inclination that anyone thought of planting the pack train and supplying each company with ammunition mules. What would that look like for Benteen?

I think they were stuck with it as is and didn't have a plan. I think leaving it at the divide except for ammunition would have been a good option. If you bring it forward you have to worry about it as an attractant to the Indians.

Regards

Steve

[yanmacca]

Feb 20, 2018 17:41:48 GMT quincannon said:

What "many" describe does not matter. What you describe matters. You are not many. You are you. As such you know more than the average person who reads this stuff. "Many" is another of those "Some Say" words. "Many" and "Some" may be a bunch of snotty nosed blithering idiots for all either of us know. You on the other hand are not. I do not give a rat's behind what "Many" or "Some" have to say, and neither should you. It is important the we, you and I, give our opinions, not those of some unknowns who may still be playing with crayons and reading comic books. 

You and I do not write for you and I. We write for the people who read us. Therefore I may fully understand what you mean, but unless everyone has that same understanding, we have failed in one of our missions which is to educate.

It would be perfectly proper to describe the way Custer apportioned his forces, by saying he formed three combat battalions and regimental trains. It would be perfectly proper to say, he formed three battalions and a logistical support element. There are probably two or three more perfectly acceptable variations as well that convey the proper intended meaning to anyone that reads the post. You and I have a great advantage over most people who come here. We must use that advantage to their advantage, or we might as well go home for all the good we may do.

What is the root and origin of the word battalion? Battaglione the Italian word for battalion has its root in Battaglia meaning battle.  Words matter. When you use the word battalion 95 percent of those who read us take the word at its root meaning - an organization designed for battle. What they envision is often not what you and I may mean to convey. There is also the matter of the basic definition of a battalion which is two or more companies. In this instance the word companies is also very important in that it illuminates the fact that a battalion is organized for combat in that there is a superior headquarters with two or more subordinate headquarters.

So basically Chuck, it is the line "four battalions" that you don't agree with.

[yanmacca]

Steve, I would have happily have left the train [minus the ammo mules] at the divide.
I would have also been happy to leave an NCO and two privates from each company too, to protect their company kit.

The idea of leaving between six and twelve men from each company is crazy, which is what they did, and this watered down the companies even more as they were already weakened as it is.

Company B would take its place in the line.

Now this may seem harsh, but leaving 30 troopers and half a dozen civilian packers with the train at the divide would seem a risk worth taking, as they are out of the combat zone and only guarding none essentials, but they would be alone but they are on a military mission and as the soldiers taking part in the assault, they have to take their chance.

[quincannon]

Yes Ian, that is correct. Strictly by definition of the word battalion alone, there were three battalions. A battalion must have an organized pyramid structure with organized superior and subordinate command functions to qualify.

Had Custer from the outset, organized from within his own assets a provisional (meaning not permanent, nor authorized by the War Department) trains company, given it a commander, and instituted some form of internal command organization, in that provisional company, then paired it with the guard company (Company B) and appointed an overall commander (of both guard and provisional trains company) then you could rightly say that it was a battalion. Custer did not, and to the best of my knowledge MacDougal had no command function over the trains. 

Once again all we need do is turn to Godfrey in Century Magazine for a complete and accurate order of battle. Godfrey tells us that the pack trains had Lieutenant Mathey in charge (note how he did not say in command) with Company B (MacDougal) as escort. Godfrey obviously considered these two, the trains and Company B to be separate entities, or else he would have listed them as a fourth battalion and designated a battalion commander as he had done with all the rest.

All this is illustrative of the fact that it does not matter what other people say is truth, or what they may prefer to call something. It is a matter of going to reliable source documents and finding out what the intention was, and how they referred to something.

[quincannon]

Steve: A transportation, support, medical, or any other type of specialist battalion is just like any other battalion organized for combat. It consists of two or more companies. It has a superior headquarters commanding and controlling subordinate headquarters. It is an echeloned pyramid in structure. They are not maneuver battalions, but they are battalions.

What it is not is one company, and a group of details with no overarching structure.

[yanmacca]

I have amended my earlier post.

The question over who commands who is similar to one we did a while ago concerning armour and infantry, example; if a infantry company is supported by a tank platoon, who gives the orders?

With Mathey being a Lieutenant and MacDougal being a Captain, you would think that the train would dance to MacDougal's tune.

I wonder if Company B took to being in the lead with the train following behind, if so then in effect they were acting like an advanced guard, with the job of covering their front, but I would guess that MacDougal would have also strung out flank guards too.

[dan25]

Yan, I think MacDougal and B company was assigned as the rear guard. Which should put them behind everything and every one else.

[yanmacca]

You are be right Dan, was this data from the RCOI?
He states that Custer ordered him to take charge of the pack train and act as rear guard. And that this order was given on the divide between the Rosebud and the LBH.

[dan25]

QC,
The Pack Train and company B, being separate entities makes sense.
MacDougal commands company B as the rear guard only.
Since Lt. Mathey is in charge of the pack train, why couldn't he be referred to as being in command of the pack train?


Yan,
 Off hand I don't remember where I read it. I think I seen it several times. There are so many books and web sites. I realize it doesn't have to be correct, it just seemed logical to have a rear guard acting independently of the other units.

[quincannon]

Ian:

In the American way of doing things using your example the company commander is giving the orders, but instead of the tank platoon supporting the Infantry company, the tank platoon belongs to that Infantry company by attachment, thus command authority has been established.

Superior officers, in this instance MacDougal, do not have command authority over junior officers, unless someone gave that superior officer such command authority.

Company B in all probability took the lead of the pack trains because Macdougal made the judgment call that his job was to guard and cover. Once Benteen took over the cover mission from him. MacDougal just continued.

What is the exact sentence and context of MacDougal's RCOI testimony?

You cannot be in charge of anything else and still be a rear guard. Those are two conflicting missions. A rear guard must be able to act independently, its only requirement with regards to other units is orientation on them, and to keep them all informed.

D25: Command is authority vested by position. Being in charge means that you are given responsibility for something but no vested authority over them. You can be put in charge of ten guys cleaning ten bathrooms, but you are not in command of them.

The reason that Godfrey is so valuable to us Dan, is that Godfrey told the complete story start to finish from the vantage point of a company commander, and includes for the most part those things he himself observed. He does little in the way of theorizing, although he states his opinion several times. He also writes, not for the likes of us here, but rather for Joe and Jane Everyday, people who have little or no knowledge of the military and how it operates.

[dan25]

QC,

I was rather confused that one could be in charge and not be in command. I assume this is a military thing, different than what a civilian would expect.

I was so curious I looked them up in the dictionary.

Command,
verb (used with object)
to have authority over and responsibility for or be in charge of.

verb (used without object)
to be in charge; have authority

Idioms
In charge,
In command; having supervisory power.

In charge of;
having the care or supervision of;

So you can see why I was so confused. I have a lot to learn.

regards
dan25

[quincannon]

I understand.

AS I said above, Godfrey used the words "in charge" rather than in command. I can only speculate what the reason was, and I concluded that each of these details were from 12 different companies with 12 different company commanders. Presumably each of those company commanders gave those detailed personnel instructions on what they were to do. Therefore if Mathey were to be placed "in command" it would set up a situation where these detailed men may be placed in a situation of having to serve two masters. What if Mathey tells them something that directly contradicts something they were told by their company commander. Being placed in charged eliminates that, in that the person placed in charge is limited to providing overall direction "were going thisaway or thataway" and not interfering with the internal workings of those twelve companies.

Companies, Batteries, and Troops are sacred institutions within the Army, and those company, battery, and troop commanders have full sway over what happens within their organization, a line that is crossed only by angels.

One time in the great dark past I was a support platoon leader. Organizationally at the time that gave me command of all of the battalions supply and sustainment means except the mess personnel, who at that time still belonged to the companies. The mess trucks and cooks were located in the same place as my field trains and actually part of it for purposes of local security. So in practice they were mine, but having said that, if a company commander wanted to feed his people chicken for dinner, when everyone else was having roast beef, then I had no power or authority to change it.

[deadwoodgultch]

Chuck, eat what is made and shut up, or I will call Joan. One or two?

Regards,
Tom