So one man dies and the entire chain of command collapses? I don’t think so.
The way British posts were set up, you might have a Fort containing the Company or Battalion HQ and the main force and smaller outposts a few hours ride away containing a smaller number of men, typically commanded by an officer usually a Lt for smaller post or a Captain for larger ones. For instance, at Rourke’s Drift the officers in charge were, although both had several years in service by then.
ETA: In response to What Exit
I believe that in the British Army, commissioned officers from upper-crust backgrounds are referred to (behind their backs) as “Ruperts” - this is not necessarily meant affectionately.
It’s an old trope that new young officers have to have their hands held, metaphorically speaking, by seasoned old NCOs.
I think the US & UK did things differently. Plus the US wasn’t really maintaining many overseas holdings until much later. Even Hawaii was 1893. There we did not really have an occupying army but mainly local partisans supported by the US Navy.
You brought the subject up. Give us some examples of armies collapsing due to fallen commanders and we’ll analyze them on a case by case basis.
I’m a bit confused by what you’re trying to say here; surely if it was common for armies to fall apart when they lose the leader, that would rather imply that capable and competent leaders are the exception, rather than the rule, among officers. Otherwise there would be an organised chain of lower ranking officers ready to step up, take command, and be followed.
The Confederates at Shiloh? The British/Indian Army at Loos? The Romans at Adrianpole? The Arabs at Tours? The English at Hastings?
A place doesn’t need to be overseas to be remote, specially pre-combustion engines.
in American culture its the west point types that have been in a military school since they were 10 and thought they knew it all and never got their hands dirty …
I know, but the US tended to have strong, well manned posts and not small stations as I mentioned above. AK84 seemed to be indicating that the UK used smaller posts and stations that jr. officers would be in charge of. The US long term occupations were more centralized I guess. Even the Western posts built up during the heart of the Indian Wars and were quickly reduced in numbers after the wars played out. In the Philippines, they made excellent use of steam ships and running telegraphs for advanced communications. The only real major US pre-combustion engines occupations was during the Western Expansion.
The article also makes me wonder if some of the same issues apply to the Chinese military. Rather than hijack this thread, I continued the question in a separate thread.
In wartime, with mass conscript armies, the heels go in along with the regular guys - large numbers of officers are needed and the military has to make the best of the material that it is handed. In a volunteer army it can afford to be more discriminating especially if there are plenty of applicants for the places.
As pointed out earlier, there are still many countries where being an officer is something you do because you are part of the ruling caste and it furthers your political/social ambitions and your goal is to draw your paycheck and leave all the actual work to NCOs.
Interesting (or not) anecdote : as you might have heard, we French did away with nobility as a social caste in rather abrupt fashion in the late 1700s* and our military has been all volunteer for a while now ; however to this day the “De Something” (as in, people bearing a name indicating they’re noblefolk, like “von X” does in Germany) are overly represented among the officer corps in all three branches. I believe they still see it as a sort of “noblesse oblige” sort of thing, or an honourable family tradition yadda yadda thing.
- though to be fair, in actual fact [SIZE=1]Napoleon undid a lot of the “fuck the nobles and the church” work laid down by the revolutionaries and plenty of noble families coasted on their massive estates and social recognition/good old boys network all the way to the 1950s [/SIZE]
Another important point is that they guy who says “hey, we have to do the job assigned” is going to earn a bit of dislike by people who were drafted and didn’t want to be there in the first place. I suppose a lot of the difference in how the order is given, how the grunts take those orders and how they feel about the one giving the orders - it depends a lot on how that one is perceived. It’s not hard to pick up on arrogance or a feeling of superiority on the part of the boss.
There’s the Doonesbury cartoon about BD telling Vietnam war stories to fellow Gulf War I combatants:
Soldier: “You mean you shot your own officers??”
BD: “Just the dumb ones. Mostly lieutenants.”
IIRC one of the complaints about the officers in Vietnam was that they were gung-ho fresh out of military college types, plunked down in a location and trying to tell battle-weary vets to get out there and get shot at again. Apparently combat experience was thought necessary for career advancement, so officers were dumped into the field with no prior practical experience, for a short stint with a group they had never met before…
I remember an episode of Tour of Duty where a patrol led by a shavetail LT, his Grizzled Old Sergeant, and an EOD guy who “just happened” to be along is out in the boonies. The LT steps on a mine – one of the ones that explodes when you step off of it – freezes, and the GOS and EOD are examining his foot closely.
EOD: Could be tricky. Is he a good Lieutenant?
GOS: Too soon to tell.
LT: Come on, guys!
The Spanish armed forces created the Academia Militar in 1882, forcing officers to all be graduates of a single school as a way to break up the interservice rivalries which had been such a pain in the ass for centuries. But we still combined the option to pay your way out of conscription with that to buy a commission for decades; when my grandfather did his military service (Second Republic, 1930s) both were still common, by the time my father would have done his hadn’t he been flatfooted the two options weren’t available any more (doesn’t mean there were no instances of nudge-nudge and backscratching, but these weren’t built into the system).
The discussion has neglected an important background affect.
A certain percentage of human beings are pricks, and act like it when they can.
“When they can” in an organizational setting translates to “when they’re allowed to.” And when you’re allowed to be a prick in a hierarchical organization boils down to “when you’re a superior rank dealing with subordinates.” The lieutenant who lets his cruel side show in the presence of his own superior may have a drastically shortened career; a young officer being disrespectful to any superior officer definitely will. So, prickishness is directed downward, and officers are distinctly less common than enlisted, so their prickishness is sufficiently distinctive to become a trope.
There’s the story of the Argentine Junta - the admirals were upset that the Air Force and Army were getting all the glory in the Falklands War (so far) while the navy was confined to port. The leader told them not to, but Navy command said “you can’t tell us what to do!” They sent the battleship Belgrano out and it was promptly sunk by British submarines.
It’s likely that; a story. The Belgrano, was sunk early on, before the Argentine AF had a chance to inflict the casualties it did.
I knew a couple of prick officers when I was in the Coast Guard in the 1980s but most were generally okay. Usually it’s the XO or Deputy Group Commander (same thing, just different ranks) who is, or feels, they have to be the hard ass. Met two district Admirals doing inspection. One struck me as medocre, the other very impressive: intelligent, wanted to improve things for his sailors and did. What little I dealt with helicopter pilots left me favorably impressed except one:a British RAF pilot in an exchange program.
But you culd probably find the same percentage in enlisted rates.