Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was watching Band Of Brothers, The Breaking Point, where Easy Company takes Foy.
Lt. Dyke was shouting out stupid commands, and freezes up and can't handle the pressure, and Captain Winters, ***** his gun and starts to run towards the field.
Well, Colonel Sink tells him not to go, that he's the Battalion Commander, so Winters sends someone else out to take over.
In the Army today, if American soldiers were taking a city back from the Taliban, for example...
And the CO was doing stupid things and not getting anything done, just getting men killed...
COULD a ranking officer take over?
I know it doesn't exactly work the same way these days, BUT if a Battalion Commander was there, watching these men die, why would he be punished for taking over command of the battle?
I was watching Band Of Brothers, The Breaking Point, where Easy Company takes Foy.
Lt. Dyke was shouting out stupid commands, and freezes up and can't handle the pressure, and Captain Winters, ***** his gun and starts to run towards the field.
Well, Colonel Sink tells him not to go, that he's the Battalion Commander, so Winters sends someone else out to take over.
In the Army today, if American soldiers were taking a city back from the Taliban, for example...
And the CO was doing stupid things and not getting anything done, just getting men killed...
COULD a ranking officer take over?
I know it doesn't exactly work the same way these days, BUT if a Battalion Commander was there, watching these men die, why would he be punished for taking over command of the battle?
There was a saying that they taught us early in my Lieutenant years...
"If you are firing your weapon all the time, you ARE NOT doing your job...you have 30 weapons at your disposal. FIGHT YOUR PLATOON!"
CPT Winters, in this case, should be managing the battle, and sometimes being right up front is simply asking to get killed. You won't be managing **** then.
There is a persistent misunderstanding among civilians that somehow senior officers are physically "better" than their men, better shots, better physical condition, etc, and that's what got them promoted. This leads to the misunderstanding that if the senior officers were there in the heat of the battle, somehow things would magically turn out great all the time.....almost without exception, not true. Age takes its toll. What they have is experience-that they apply through use of their subordinates. As a battalion commander, there is not a whole lot of reason to be personally fighting. Your role is to indirectly led the direct troop leadership: the company commanders, who then lead the platoon leaders, who then lead the NCOs, and so on down the line. And Winters, in this case, was the Battalion Commander. He should use his subordinates to accomplish his intent.
Now, you asked a loaded question. If for instance, I were back in my company grade days and screwing up by the numbers: Sure, a ranking officer COULD take over if they were in the chain of command. If it were some_random_Major, I'd laugh him off and keep issuing orders until my chain of command told me get out of the way, and just take the chance my commander wouldn't put me up for UCMJ.
Realistically: the senior officer on site would relieve the commander, on the spot, and put another officer or a senior NCO in charge to do the actual on-the-spot direct troop leadership, for reasons I just described. Or the senior NCO would step up, do the right thing, and cut the officer out, telling his men he was taking charge-again, taking the chance his actions were right and he wouldn't be punished.
In a military context, the chain of command is the line of authority and responsibility along which orders are passed within a military unit and between different units. Orders are transmitted down the chain of command, from a higher-ranked soldier, such as a commissioned officer, to lower-ranked personnel who either execute the order personally or transmit it down the chain as appropriate, until it is received by those expected to execute it.
In general, military personnel give orders only to those directly below them in the chain of command and receive orders only from those directly above them.
It has been pretty much that way in the U.S. Army, from 14 June 1775 to present. There are always "what if's" and what you see on TV....
Supposedly this is based off of the things that happened in real life..
I'm not saying better shots or anything, but weeks earlier, Easy Co. was doing fine with Winters in command, he hadn't been promoted that much higher than where he had been...
The men knew him, and liked him,
I'm just asking, why did colonel Sink yell?
Winters used to command the company, and carry a gun, and fight, AND command at the same time, so letting his soldiers fight, but using his gun when he needed too...
Today, don't officers do the same thing? Shoot, AND command?
So, he cocked his gun, as if he might need it, or contribute to the fight but he wasn't going in JUST to fight, it was to get them out of the artillery's zone and machine gun and sniper fire...
Would he have gotten in trouble from higher ups IF he had taken over again?
Today, don't officers do the same thing? Shoot, AND command?
Do you honestly think General Petraeus is out there taking shots at the enemy during ambush?
A Battalion Commander should be commanding his battalion, not running in to act like he is a Company Commander again. He has subordinates to command the companies.
From what I understand, although virtually all officers carry pistols and M4 carbines they very rarely actually take a shot at the enemy. This was the case in World War II as well, I read a memoir of an infantry company commander and he stated he only fired something like 5 shots at the enemy in all of World War II.
Supposedly this is based off of the things that happened in real life..
It was...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger
I'm not saying better shots or anything, but weeks earlier, Easy Co. was doing fine with Winters in command, he hadn't been promoted that much higher than where he had been...
He hadn't been promoted at all, he was a Captain as E-Company commander, and still Captain when assigned to 2nd Battalion HQ as XO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger
The men knew him, and liked him,
I'm just asking, why did colonel Sink yell?
Because he was not doing his job, his job was as part of Battalion HQ not E-Company. Losses are unfortunate, but part of war, him running off to save the day may have resulted in greater casualties elsewhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger
Winters used to command the company, and carry a gun, and fight, AND command at the same time, so letting his soldiers fight, but using his gun when he needed too...
Today, don't officers do the same thing? Shoot, AND command?
Today officers command, perform the roles of their career branch and fight, primarily command and perform the tasks required from their career branch, fight when needed. Everyone's job in any service is to fight, they may also have additional responsibilities that take precedence. It was more or less the same in WW2, and before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger
So, he cocked his gun, as if he might need it, or contribute to the fight but he wasn't going in JUST to fight, it was to get them out of the artillery's zone and machine gun and sniper fire...
Perhaps they were meant to be there, drawing enemy fire, to allow another unit to perform a flank, or get into a better position. At the end of the day at that moment, all that was known is that the company was under fire and, until informed otherwise, had a competent commander (or if he was combat ineffective competent sub commanders).
Protocol would be (assuming there was no reason for the company to be taking excessive fire) contact the company and tell them to get the hell out of there, and wait for a reaction to the order. If there was no reaction (or comms were down) send a junior battalion officer or senior NCO (with orders) to locate the company commander. If the company commander failed to obey those orders then his junior officers or senior NCO's could relieve him, and they would have far better standing to do so.
I haven't seen the episode (or even the series), so I can't comment on what the precise situation was, or what battalion had done to either put E-Company in that position and why (was it a SNAFU or intentional), or what was done to correct E-Company's situation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kings Ranger
Would he have gotten in trouble from higher ups IF he had taken over again?
If during the Battle of Foy you mean...? then yes, it would certainly have been dereliction of duty, failure to obey a direct order issued by a superior officer, and perhaps desertion (which is punishable by summary execution during conflict). This isn't GI Joe, you can't go off freelancing with impunity, and while Winters might have many personal relationships with his former unit they were never HIS men, they were the US Armies men.
I have heard stories of General "Mad Dog" Mattis suiting up and going on cordon and knocks with infantry units in Iraq. Don't know if it's true or not, but I would not be surprised if it was.
I wasn't saying Petraeus would, he's the overall commander...
Meant, if it wasn't self defense, like if a convoy was attacked, if a Captain was in the convoy, and he had a CO commanding troops, and doing a HORRIBLE job, and the Captain took over, instead assigning a Lt. to take his place...
Its not a big enough "question" to go so in depth, was just curious at the time, and figured, if it was going to get the job done, with less lives lost, the armed forces would be open to it...
I wasn't saying Petraeus would, he's the overall commander...
Meant, if it wasn't self defense, like if a convoy was attacked, if a Captain was in the convoy, and he had a CO commanding troops, and doing a HORRIBLE job, and the Captain took over, instead assigning a Lt. to take his place...
Its not a big enough "question" to go so in depth, was just curious at the time, and figured, if it was going to get the job done, with less lives lost, the armed forces would be open to it...
/facepalm
Okay, one more time, with feeling:
A Battalion Commander should be commanding his battalion, not running in to act like he is a Company Commander again. He has subordinates to command the companies.
I'm telling you this from *my* perspective: I've served in almost every leadership position at an Army battalion level from fire team leader up through company commander, and have also served as battalion (and higher) staff officer.
The scenario you keep coming up with almost certainly wouldn't happen. Yes, a BN Cdr would get in trouble for "Taking over" a company because he has three-four *other* companies that need him and can get in a jam if he's off trying to work as a company commander.
As a company commander, I would have *relieved*, on the spot, a platoon leader who ignored his platoon leader job to go try to act like a squad leader. A platoon leader fights his platoon; a company commander fights his company; one more time-a combat arms battalion commander fights his battalion!
Would every situation be the same? No.
Would every battalion commander get in trouble for running in to do a company commander's job? No.
Did the one in the show? Yes.
Is it right to do? Situational, but usually, no.
Last edited by GeorgiaTransplant; 09-20-2010 at 04:55 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
