More handpicked essays just for you.
Operational overview of the battle of little bighorn
What casued the battle of little big horn
Operational overview of the battle of little bighorn
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Battle of Little Bighorn is one of the most widely analyzed engagements in United States history. The events leading up to the conflict and the execution of the battle has provided many to learn valuable insight while gaining a concrete understanding of what unfolded on that fateful day. After the Civil War, tensions between Native American tribes and the US Army led to a number of bloody confrontations as the United States ambitiously sought westward expansion. General Phillip Sheridan spearheaded the three-pronged push to break concentrations of both the Sioux and Cheyenne Indians back into reservations in order to enable the expansion efforts in the Dakotas. Among General Sheridan’s command was Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer. On June 25th 1876, the Seventh Calvary led by Custer fought and subsequently were annihilated by Cheyenne and Sioux forces along the Little Bighorn River in Southern Montana in one of the greatest massacres in US history. Throughout the preparation and execution of the operation at Little Bighorn, one can analyze mission command doctrine to gain a greater understanding of how and why the massacre unfolded. According to ADRP 6-0 Mission Command, the US Army defines mission command is the “exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to employ agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.” When applying mission command to the Battle of Little Bighorn, there are a number of tasks that Custer (as the commander) was responsible for employing. Lieutenant Colonel Custer demonstrated poor mission command by failing to understand, visualize, direct and lead throughout the operations...
... middle of paper ...
...espite the warnings from his own scouts, Custer failed to understand capabilities of both the Sioux and Cheyenne Indian tribes. Furthermore, Custer unsuccessfully visualized the overall end state of the operation by greatly underestimating the Indian forces he was facing. Continually, Custer demonstrated poor direction during the operation by dividing his command into three groups, and failing to recognize how variables such as terrain would inhibit effective command and control during the engagement. Finally, a commander must lead throughout the operations process, and Custer clearly could not effectively lead by dividing his forces prior to the confrontation. Many failures ultimately led to Custer’s defeat, but investigating the battle allows one to gain a greater appreciate of how applying effective mission command can greatly affect the outcome of any battle.
The purpose of this paper is to perform a mission command analysis of the Battle of Gettysburg, honing in on Pickett’s Charge. The Battle of Gettysburg took place on July 1st through July 3rd in 1863 in the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The belligerents were the Army of the Potomac, led by MG George G. Meade and the Army of Northern Virginia, led by GEN Robert E. Lee. The goal is to analyze the decisions of GEN Lee using the six mission command principles described in the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0 and then assess the outcome of those decisions.
The 7th Cavalry Regiment's destruction at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in June 1876 is the subject of over a century of debate. LTC George A. Custer failed to exercise four key responsibilities that were expected of him as the regiment’s commander. He failed to understand the problem and environment, visualize a feasible solution, clearly describe it to his subordinates, and effectively direct his forces. These four aspects of mission command are integral to the operations process and help Soldiers understand and execute their commander's intent. Custer's failure to properly fulfill his role in the operations process resulted in his death and a strategic defeat for the nation.
LTC George Armstrong Custer did not effectively apply the concept of mission command as a warfighting function during the Battle of Little Bighorn. While it is important to understand the context in which Custer made his decisions, those circumstances offer little in terms of excusing the fiasco that was Little Bighorn. Custer failed to follow orders, did not take pertinent intelligence into consideration, did not adequately plan or execute protection of his forces, and fought without essential fires equipment available to him. Custer did exercise good sustainment, but it was for naught, as the battle was brief.
General Lee did not establish clear commander’s intent when issuing orders to his cavalry commander. After entering Pennsylvania, General Lee gave the cavalry commander wide latitude in his orders to screen the main column, and did not establish a clear intent. General Lee’s cavalry began a skirmish with the Union Army while traveling beyond their lines of communication. Outlined in ADRP 6-0 the commander must provide a clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation1. General Lee’s cavalry was absent from the first days of the battle because he did not use clear and concise communication. General Lee’s poor use of mission command deprived him of his cavalry, an important asset.
Epple J. C. (1970). Custer’s battle of the Washita and A history of the Plains Indian Tribes
Throughout the battle, you see numerous Army Values and Warrior Ethos being used. “I will never leave a fallen comrade”, was the etho used the most, to reach the separated platoon. The battle also shows that not all tactical orders are effective, but as a leader you must never second guess yourself.
Today Custer’s last stand is one of the most famous events in American History. Two Thousand Sioux Native Americans slaughtered General George Custer’s army of 600 men armed with guns. Crazy Horse was a very important leader in the Great Sioux War of 1876.
The journey of exploration to the western territories brought the white man many great things, but they did face some opposition. The US government made plans to explore the Black Hills, after hearing of the gold it contained. This was not an easy task. The Sioux, with strong force, were not giving up their sacred land easily. The only way to gain the territory of the Black Hills was to wage war against the Sioux. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was one battle that the US will never forget. General George Custer led an army of men to take out the Sioux, one of the battalions was completely wiped out including Custer. The Sioux were very strong, but US had a lot more power and technology. Why did we get massacred? This question has been a mystery to many people throughout the years. Sergeant Windolph, of Benteen’s cavalry, and John F. Finerty, from General Crooks cavalry, bring us some personal accounts and memories of this tragedy.
O'Neill, Laurie A.. Chapter 9: Final Defeat of the Plains Indians. The Millbrook Press, 1993. eLibrary.
In late November 2001 Task Force 58 launched from ships off the coast of Pakistan to conduct the longest ranged amphibious assault in history with 403 Marines and Sailors, 4 fast-attack vehicles, and a variety of supporting equipment,. General James N. Mattis successfully accomplished this in large part to the effective execution of mission command. Commanders can utilize mission command as a philosophy or a warfighting function. Mission command as a philosophy is the use of commander's intent and mission orders to empower agile and adaptive leaders. It enables commanders to counter the uncertainty of operations by reducing the amount of certainty required to act in a given situation. Commanders build cohesive teams, provide a clear commander's intent and guidance, encourage the use of disciplined initiative, and use mission orders through the operations process to effectively use mission command as a philosophy. Commanders drive this operations process using mission command through six steps. First, they must understand the operational environment and the problem. Second, a commander must visualize his desired end state and operational approach. Third, he must describe that visualization to subordinates using time, space, purpose, and resources. Fourth, commanders must direct forces throughout preparation and execution. Finally, through each of the first four steps, commanders need to lead through purpose and motivation and assess through continuous monitoring and evaluation. General Mattis successfully utilized mission command as a philosophy by understanding, visualizing, leading, describing, and assessing through the operations process as the commander of Naval Task Force 58.
With buffalo numbers decreasing fast, Native American tribes faced starvation and desperation. There were many different actions the Americans did to destroy the land of the Native Americans. Western expansion caused a shift in the lives of Native Americans because many tribes, including women and kids, were being murdered by the new settlers. S.G. Colley, a U.S. Indian Agent, writes in a Report for the Committee on the Conduct of War, “That notwithstanding his knowledge of the facts as above set forth, he is informed that Colonel Chivington did, on the morning of the 29th of November last, surprise and attack said camp of friendly Indians and massacre a large number of them, (mostly women and children,) and did allow the troops of his command to mangle and mutilate them in the most horrible manner” (Colley, 1865). This quote shows the Americans were exterminating innocent American Indians for no justifiable reason.
The Battle of the Little Big Horn, 1876, “Eye Witness to History. Retrieved November 20, 2011 from www.eyewitnesstohistory.com.
... book to characters in other novels, you begin to see styles of leadership that are used and the effectiveness that they can have on a person’s character and ability to accomplish a mission. I feel as if a constant leadership style was put in charge from the beginning of their deployment that followed the standard that was necessary, then the soldiers would have been unable to commit the crimes they did during their deployment. On the flipside of that coin, I feel as if more competent leaders had existed through the tumultuous time of the deployment, they would have been able to adapt to the situation and control the soldiers they were responsible for no matter how difficult the deployment became. Despite the fact that 11 of 33 original 1st platoon leaders were removed by the end of the deployment a strong leader duo could have prevented the actions that took place.
One of the main forms of violence in the Old West was murder; the rising tension between the American soldiers and the Native Americans was a main contributor to this violence. An example of this strain is the Sand Creek Massacre. American soldiers attacked unaware Native Americans of the Cheyenne and Arapahoe ethnic groups. All men, women, and children were killed and/or tortured. There were no survivors. “Two soldiers drew their pistols and shot her [a little girl]”, portraying that these sort of crimes came about regularly in the West (Document G). Another example of this is the Battle of Beecher Island. The Battle of Beecher Island, also known as the Battle of Arikaree Fork, was the armed disagreement between soldiers of the U.S. Army and a few Native American tribes. According to Document H, there were “at least 50 [men dead]; perhaps as many as 200 [men] were wounded” (Document H). Adding on to the uneasiness between the Native Americans and the white soldiers, many killings were encountered by foolishness, not battle. The Native Americans and the soldiers wanted to prove that their race is more macho and better than the other. Even though Document L states that “113 [people] recorded no trouble with the Indians”, Document M detects many problems with the Native Americans resulting in “919” troops killed (Document L, Document M). The white soldiers in the Old West would have loved to kill the Native American’s buffalo popu...
In addition to the road to battle, it is important to know that historical accounts of what led to the battle and what transpired are in dispute. These are not disputes over minor items, such as the exact order of battle or a clear sequence of events in what was a confusing night and dawn battle. Accounts of what transpired are often fundamentally different, and it is clear that various actors suppressed or championed differing accounts for political or personal reasons. By some accounts, the battle began by accident as an Indian patrol sent to keep watch on the Americans drew fire from nervous American sentries, leading the Indians only a mile away at Prophetstown to attack. By other accounts, the Indians planned a deliberate attack in order to strike the American force before the Americans could strike the Indians. Harrison touted the battle as a decisive victory that broke up the Indian confederacy and many historians agreed. However, modern accounts argue that the battle actuall...