|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2018 14:22:25 GMT
What is condescending about - battalion column, companies in column? That is the proper name of what is seen in the picture.
It is of no matter if it is a column of twos, as shown, or a column of fours, or even a single file, as long as it is a column with one company behind the other it is still a battalion column, companies in column.
What I am objecting to is you using the words line and column to mean the same thing, as you did in your post containing the picture. While those two words may convey the same word picture in civil life they have vastly different meanings in the military world. That picture for instance did not portray a long line as you labeled it, but rather a column, and in that specific picture a certain type of column.
So your question of all five in a long line looks like a snake, should be all five in column, and it still looks like a snake.
Words must have the same meaning as they travel from sender to receiver, from commander to subordinate. Here is why:
Your commander tells you to bring your units into line. You look back over your shoulder and see your unit in column, which in civil life means the same thing as line, and then say to yourself my units are already in line, I don't need to do anything. You have failed to do what your commander ordered you to do, simply because you misunderstood what he was telling you to do. That is why I am merciless on issues like this. Everyone must understand the meaning of the word used. There must never be any confusion.
Your reference to Reno being having two companies in column of fours to provide more punch, is both deceptive and inaccurate. Deceptive in that once Reno fully deployed they would no longer be in a column of fours, but rather a line. Inaccurate because assaulting in a column of fours has absolutely no punch at all. Such a formation may be used in the bottom lands of the Chickahominy where the roads are more narrow than your driveway, and either side of the road is covered in dense, jungle like, vegetation, but not in any open land, particularly the open lands of the American west.
It is important that these things be fully explained, with that we are in agreement, for our audience is wider than ourselves. If we are going to do that though we must use the proper terminology, so those that read us not only learn, but learn what is as completely correct as we can make it . WORDS MATTER.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 20, 2018 18:49:50 GMT
I will not get into a verbal jousting match with you Chuck, as I have too much respect for you.
Reno moved up that valley with two companies in columns of fours and one in reserve in columns of fours. Once he saw his objective or even his enemy, he deployed his two lead companies into line but kept his reserve in columns of fours. When he decided to bring his reserve into the picture, it also deployed into line with the battalion in G-A-M order.
The only thing I can own up to is the word "punch" if that was wrong then I will change it, apart from that I don't know what you are on about, but considering the amount of work I put into this site, I think you could have glossed over the error.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2018 19:19:40 GMT
NO IAN: Reno moved up that valley in a V Formation. That is the salient point the V formation, not that each of the points of that V were in column of fours or any other configuration of a column.
It is not fours or twos that matter. IT IS THE V FORMATION THAT MATTERS
As the threat appeared he shifted those leading two companies into line, prudently keeping his reserve company in column, so that they could easily move to either flank as need may dictate. That need presented itself and he then moved that reserve company into line as well.
As to punch. Would you rather be attacked by four guys shooting at you or forty guys shooting at you? Forty has more punch that four.
You are failing to see the forest of formation(s) for the trees of twos and fours. The formation a battalion or any other unit is in is the thing that matters. The elements of that formation, be they in column or line,twos, fours, single file, or sub-mob do not matter at all. It is the formation.
It is exactly because you and many others have put so much work into this site, that glossing over errors is the last thing any of us should either think about or do. Truth is only spelled one way. Glossing over errors effects a persons moral compass. It is tacit approval of what is said, and when I give tacit approval to an error by saying nothing, for me that tacit approval becomes the same as me lying to the audience we serve. If I know something is wrong and said nothing about it, it is a form of dishonesty.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 20, 2018 19:25:40 GMT
Bloody hell, two up with one behind does constitutes a V formation. I have promised to retract my punch remark, what else can I do.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2018 19:37:53 GMT
Yes it does, just like two up and two back constitutes a box, one up and two back constitutes a wedge, and one up two in the middle, and one back constitutes a diamond. I dare not get into echelon right or left, because you can't really do it without drawing a picture of them.
What can you do? From my perspective - concentrate on the bag a marbles, and not so much of how many marbles are in the bag. Counting marbles, will not give you the broad view of actions, events, tactics, formations, techniques, and procedures that are required.
All these things are second nature to me. Not that I am any smarter than the next guy. I''m not. I just did it for so long, that it becomes rote, like riding a bicycle, or instinctive like swimming. It is not the same for everyone, but we must always strive for excellence in everything we do.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 20, 2018 20:28:54 GMT
I did not realize that as Ian said, two up and one down would be called a v formation so I do appreciate the clarification.
QC if I start an area for this kind of information do you think you can help us have a glossary of terms and formations? As you say and I agree Words Matter-but we have to have a common definition of those words-especially for anyone who comes in the future. As you say this is a second nature to you and I appreciate your wealth of knowledge.
Please remember that we have all levels of readers and what is obvious to some might take several ways of explaining to another. I also have the added problem that I am afraid that I have just forgotten over the past year a lot of the stuff I used to know--so please be patience with me if you see me asking questions about things that everyone knows I have questioned before. It is frustrating having to fumble for things that I know I used to know. Seriously, earlier in the week I couldn't remember the word "breakout" even though I knew it was the word I needed instead of the dreaded retreat. I could describe it, knew what I wanted to say but just could not find the word in my head--like I said frustrating.
Now another question from one who has forgotten, why would would you use that formation beyond it was SOP? Was it dictated because there were 3 companies?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 20, 2018 21:52:45 GMT
Actually Beth the V formation is a fairly standard one (but not SOP as in must do) for an advanced guard, terrain permitting. It gives the advanced guard commander the ability to initially develop the situation on a fairly wide front, and allows the reserve to exploit any weakness discovered.
Not to belabor the point I was trying to make to Ian, but I think there is something all of us should consider.
Reno used a V formation which tells me he was pretty confident that Custer would be coming up from behind. Therefore it is not only a formation but also a window into Reno's mind.
Had he been concerned with being able to retreat, having no confidence in his supports, as Steve suggested in the middle of last week, I believe Reno would have adopted the wedge (having three sub-units) or better yet the diamond (which was eliminated because he only had three sub-units). Using either of them is like poking a long stick at a beehive, enough to stir up the bees, but not so committed you get badly stung and can't get away. Using a wedge Reno could stir things up with that lead company, and if things went quickly sideways as they did, give that lead company the opportunity to fall back supported by fire from the two trailing companies.
So formations are more than military kabuki dances or nicely drawn graphics on a map or piece of paper. they are windows on the mind a soul of the commander if one is inclined as I am to look at what is given, as a means to determine what is being thought. It's too bad we don't have any information on the formations Custer may have used. They would tell us a lot, of those things we find eternally missing.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 20, 2018 23:13:29 GMT
Thanks QC, Perhaps another dumb question but even though Reno had three sub units couldn't he have divided them into four? Or would that have too much confusion about who is in charge and what should be done?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2018 4:30:10 GMT
Sure he could. Keep in mind though that three or four is the most common battalion organization, with three being the more frequent structure of the two. Nothing at all wrong with three, and I suspect three was all that Reno could control effectively.
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 21, 2018 17:40:01 GMT
Sure he could. Keep in mind though that three or four is the most common battalion organization, with three being the more frequent structure of the two. Nothing at all wrong with three, and I suspect three was all that Reno could control effectively. That perhaps brings up the subject of Reno's capabilities and experiences? Was he like Custer prompted too fast due to the Civil War and didn't have a chance to gain experience? Or are there other factors at play like his personal life or his attempts to pickle his brain that need to be considered. Was Reno a capable commander?
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2018 18:21:58 GMT
Don't believe it was anything about Reno as a person or officer that prompted that comment. I am not at all sure of his demonstrated competence and abilities either. The one thing I do know is that he made the right decision in the valley when called upon to do so. That would seem to me to be enough for the purposes of this discussion.
What I was really referring to though was the limited assets he had with him to exercise effective command. Ian has the list, and will probably post it again, but I recall it was fairly few in number.
People sometimes overlook the fact that commanding is more than a one man alone game in combat. You need command resources in terms of people in 1876, and people and equipment in the present day.
So my comment was really directed to the the resources Reno had. It takes more resources to command four or five than it does three. The larger your span of control, the more you need to exercise that control. Add to that every resource that is dedicated to command and control in 1876 came out of someone's hide. The more that comes out of hide for C and C the less shooters are in the hide from whence they came.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 21, 2018 19:11:55 GMT
Which list, the Reno battalion HQ?
|
|
|
Post by Beth on May 21, 2018 19:20:43 GMT
I know you didn't imply anything about Reno and I apologize. I tend to connect things from conversations that sometimes aren't in the actual conversation.
I tend to believe to know a person is to understand their method of command which is why I suggested a slight detour about Reno's ability-not from the point of view so often taken in the world of BLBH but as a realistic view-the same perhaps of Benteen. It is only fair since Custer's character comes into play often. Perhaps I should start another thread if there is an interest.
As to the Valley, Did Reno use the resources he had efficiently? Or did he have any leeway on how he used his resources once Custer sent him down the Valley? I know that is asking a lot for someone who wasn't actually there mind you.
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on May 21, 2018 20:00:23 GMT
Beth, I think that Reno first headed up that valley looking like this with a scout detachment on his left led by Varnum and Hare along with a dozen EMs. On the right another detail of between 10 to 15 and led by a 1st sergeant, where supposed to clear the timber. This configuration soon changed when Reno saw the opposition.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on May 21, 2018 20:16:02 GMT
Beth: No need to apologize. The only thing I know about Reno is that he commanded a very small brigade of Regular Cavalry at Kelly's Ford, and he was injured there. I just don't think we have enough reliable information on Reno the man to evaluate how good or how bad he was. On the contrary we have plenty of information on Custer, both as a personality and as a commander with which to work.
I think we must conclude that Reno used what command resources he had as efficiently as battle allows. No one covered themselves with glory that day, nor was the battle a display of best practices to be emulated by future generations.
That leaves the question of could resources have made a difference, and that lies in the lap of the organizational structure of the Army at the time, where the word stingy does not begin to adequately state the case. If you wish to command at any level you must have help in exercising that command. When I had a rifle company which was in fact authorized more personnel than Reno's battalion it was not uncommon for me to have thirty or so people to help me with the job of commanding. These resources were both from within my company, plus those people normally attached like field artillery observers , plus medical and signal personnel.
I would not expect Reno to require that many, but the fact remains that each regiment and subordinate battalion of that regiment should have had something on the order of fifteen to twenty.
Another factor that I think is very important is the idea of the permanently organized battalions within each regiment, rather than the ad-hoc structure, of you, you, and you are a battalion. With each of these battalions then there would have been a headquarters detachment. Units that stay together, and operate together, fight better.
Ian: Why is the battalion headquarters in front? Do you really want the brain trust of a battalion to be the first ones exposed to fire? Do you want to get them killed? John Ford may do it that way but the U S Army does not. Other than that the graphics you put on that map are letter perfect.
|
|