Maybe. Again, I’m not just asking about modern times. And for most of history, asking for new orders would mean something like dispatching a horse courier to HQ and waiting for him to gallop there and back.
Probably not answering the question, but a professor at my college was a chaplain in the Marines and was deployed to Iraq. At one point, for whatever reason, the other officers left the unit, and he was the only officer, so the platoon or company of Marines told him he was in charge. They set up a security perimeter for 45 minutes until the other officers returned. The professor loudly bragged in the chapel sermon, “And for my 45 minutes of leadership in combat, I didn’t lose a single Marine!” to roaring laughter and cheers.
Cornelius Ryan refers to a general in of one of the U.S. airborne units in the Normandy (forget if it was Gavin or Taylor or Ridgway). After landing, he put together a unit of a large number of officers but very few enlisted. He commented later “never before in the field of human conflict have so few been commanded by so many.”
Yes, thanks. We had a thread about the unfortunate Cox starting back in 2007, too: Why did Heinlein report incorrectly about Cox in Starship Troopers?
:sigh: I’m going to be a bit of a contrarian here (sorry)…
I wouldn’t consider a Lieutenant Commander to be a particularly junior officer aboard a cruiser. The presence of the Admiral borders on coincidence (he wasn’t there to command the ship, but the task group). Beneath the Captain, there would have been maybe a full Commander or two in ship’s company (again, not counting staff officers who are part of the task group staff under the Admiral), and then it’s Lieutenant Commanders, Lieutenants, Lieutenants Junior Grade, and Ensigns all the way down. A Lieutenant Commander would have been fairly senior, all things considered. But then maybe I’m biased…
Again, not really a huge break in the chain of command. In those days, Frigates and larger vessels only had two kinds of commissioned officers, not counting any flag staff that might have been embarked (again, to command a group of ships, not just the one): the Captain and a number of lieutenants. Commanders did not serve as 2nd in command as they might now but instead commanded smaller ships. Lieutenant Commander didn’t exist until later. Ditto with commissioned officer ranks below Lieutenant.
Which isn’t to say that Cox wasn’t unfairly blamed for a loss that came about due to his Captain’s incompetence, only to emphasize command passing from Captain to Lieutenant in those days (even the most junior of 3 Lieutenants) wasn’t such a leap as it would be today.
ETA: Also, one of the finer points Heinlein gets wrong is drawing an equivalence between a ship’s third Lieutenant and the “third Lieutenant” position Rico was supposed to occupy. Back in the day, the “rank” was Lieutenant. The Lieutenants were then numbered according to seniority, with the most senior being First Lieutenant, the next second, and etc… all the way down. A very large ship might have a fifth, sixth, seventh, & etc Lieutenant. Take the First Lieutenant from three ships and transfer them to one ship together, they don’t (all) stay First Lieutenants. One might, if there wasn’t already a more senior Lieutenant assigned to the ship, but then the others would fall in line after as, at best, Second and Third Lieutenant (or, again, possibly lower if there were already more senior Lieutenants assigned).
This is a cute story, but there are a few things wrong with it. First off, the Marines don’t actually have chaplains. Chaplains assigned to Marine Corps units are actually Navy officers, assigned to work with Marine units. (It’s a similar situation with corpsmen [i.e. medics]. The corpsmen assigned to Marine units are actually Navy personnel.)
Secondly, like other staff corps officers, chaplains are not in the chain of command for combat units. If all of the other commissioned officers were gone or incapacitated in a true combat situation, the senior NCO would have taken command of the unit.
So more than likely, everyone jokingly told the chaplain he was temporarily in charge. But chaplains have zero training for combat. If the unit had come under attack or been pressed into action, he would have quickly and unceremoniously been pushed aside and told to keep his head down and do his chaplain thing with the wounded and dying.
Some discussion of that kind of thing here: Military medics taking command?
Lieutenant Henry Curling was the ranking surviving British frontline officer of the Battle of Isandlwana after nearly a dozen assorted Colonels, Majors, and Captains were slaughtered by the Zulu army. There wasn’t much left to command though he did attempt to prevent the capture of some artillery before turning his attention to saving his own skin.
As i understand it’s an established part of the military career path. In peace time there is limit to how far someone can expect to rise through the ranks (most especially, traditionally in European armies, someone who was not from the upper classes). In war time so long as you avoid the career harming pitfall of being killed or maimed, there are no shortage of vacancies for a junior officer to fill
Les amateurs discutent tactique : les professionnels discutent logistique.
I’m really not seeing your confusion here. Subordinate leaders have always been expected to step up and assume command if necessary. They’re briefed on the plan, because they were the ones intended to execute it. They will be comms range, whether it be horse or radio or smoke signal or line-of-sight, because being in comms range is a requirement of a coordinated operation.
Of course if they can no longer communicate and no longer have a combat-effective force, then someone will assume command and most likely decide to abandon the original mission in order to retreat/reconstitute. But that wouldn’t happen purely due to loss of a commander. They’d have to lose comms, have no realistic hope of regaining comms without maneuvering, and not be in command of effective numbers to operate.
Any military that allows leaders (or really any soldier) to be irreplaceable is not a military that’s going to survive any realistic contact with an opposing force. So I don’t understand what point you’re trying to press here.
I don’t think there’s a point beyond asking for examples. (This is Factual Questions, not Great Debates.)
Yeah, the question, as I mentioned, was prompted by a fictional example I’d read recently, and that was in a fantasy book based on the Roman Legions (with some magic thrown in). In the fictional example, the only surviving officer in an entire legion (about 6000 men) was the juniormost logistics officer, and the time to get new orders from high command would be longer than the time it would take for the enemy to reach the bridge they were tasked with defending.
Which raises another point. All of those other officers that died had jobs of some sort, and needed to be replaced. In such a situation, would senior noncoms be named acting officers? Would the new acting commander be able to take more creative measures, like recruiting civilians?
Depends on where and more importantly when you are talking about. In the American military battlefield commissions used to be relatively commonplace. Now it’s technically possible but isn’t going to happen unless WWIII happens. There just isn’t the need when there isn’t total war with full mobilization. Mostly these are temporary promotions. Some are able to fulfill the requirements to retain officer rank. Audie Murphy received a battlefield commission. He was able to stay an officer in the Texas National Guard. Author and columnist David Hackworth received a battlefield commission in the Korean War. After the war he got his degree, stayed an officer and became one of the highest decorated soldiers in the Vietnam War. He left the Army as a colonel. Most did not retain their rank. My father was stationed at the Marine Corps barracks at 8th and I in D.C. right after WWII. He saw Marines show up as majors and leave as sergeants. It wasn’t a punishment, they just reverted back to their permanent rank.
Well, unless the goal was to seize the throne for the commander specifically…
Then, given that examples have been provided, I don’t understand what follow-on question is being pursued by disputing actual real-world doctrine to illuminate a trope of fiction. (This is Factual Questions, not Cafe Society).
Yes, it happens. Yes, as a situation degrades further, the likelier it is that the unit will fall apart. But in general, no, loss of a commander absolutely isn’t cause for a unit to pack it in and head for the rear in search of adult supervision. Succession of command has been a routinely expected contingency througout military history.
Related to this is the exact opposite: I read an anecdote once from paratroopers in WWII, where they got dispersed. One officer went around looking for people to make up an ad-hoc unit, and ended up with 5 or 6 other officers, and one private. He said that was the most over-supervised private of the whole war.
I haven’t seen any disputes, only discussions about details.