Command Options

[ss278]

The Harry Welsh thread as well another one talking about Patton got me thinking about command structure. (If this is the wrong forum, I trust a moderator will move it to where it belongs)

On the "Patton" thread I made the comment that after Hitler invaded Poland, General Marshall knew the U.S. Army was nowhere near ready to fight. He conducted a thorough, some would say ruthless, culling of the officer corps to find the most able officers and put them into command positions. Many junior officers were jumped, sometimes several hundred numbers, above their more senior counterparts. (Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton were among those so selected.)

Remembering when Sink relieved Sobel and sent him to a training command at Chilton Foliat got me thinking. Sink made the remark that Sobel had turned out one of the finest companies of soldiers he'd ever seen. History obviously proved this to be a correct observation.

The comparison is this. Eisenhower had to relieve Lloyd Fredendall as commander of II Corps in North Africa early in 1943. Fredendall was a protege of Marshall and widely believed, before the war, to be one of the rising stars of the U.S. Army. He had trained some of the best divisons in the Army. Only one problem, when it came to fighting an actual battle - NOT one on paper - he was a bust.

Ike knew this but because of Fredendall's relationship to Marshall he was reluctant to fire him. But as the failure of II Corps to take advantage of opportunities presented, and some outright failures, Eisenhower had his epiphany. He fired Fredendall and sent him home, replacing him with Patton.

Though many thought Fredendall would go home and be retired, he was put to work in the area where he was the best - training. Many people now give him leading credit for developing the programs which enabled the Army to field the divisions needed to invade Europe in 1944.

Marshall said nothing. He knew too. I also think that Marshall would have replaced Eisenhower if he hadn't taken the bull by the horns and fixed II Corps. This lead Eisenhower to proclaim to all his subordinate commanders his philosophy to "...be totally ruthless. If you have a subordinate who is not cutting it, get rid of him, or I'll get rid of you."

This obviously was Sink's thinking when he re-assigned Sobel. I can speculate that Sink knew of Easy's command problems with Dike, and as we saw in BoB at the attack on Foy, he was waiting to see how Winters would handle Dyke's freezing at a critical time. I have to think that had Winters not reacted the way he did, and had the attack failed, not only would Dike have been gone, but Winters wouldn't have been Battalion XO for much longer either. Winters proved he had what it took to command.

This post has been edited by ss278: Feb 5 2004, 11:05 PM

[larrya]

I agreed with you all the way up until the last paragraph. You make it sound as if Sink was intentionally setting Winters up for a test of command, using Dike and Easy Company as some sort of game piece. Winters was on the spot to supervise Easy's assualt, and he would have relieved Dike even if Sink had not been standing nearby. I'm not even sure how much Sink knew about Easy's "command problems." Winters was not the kind to go crying back to superior officers. Rather, he looked for ways to solve problems himself, which is what he did at Foy. Sink, on the other hand, had 10 companies to worry about.

[ss278]

Looking back I can see how you could read that last paragraph that way, though it was not my intention. I NEVER meant that I thought Sink was setting Winters or Dike up in any way shape or form. What I meant was, from what I know Sink was a fine Regimental commander and even though he had ten companies to worry about, he knew pretty much what was happening in each of them, but did not try to micro-manage.

Its obvious that Easy fought extremely well in Bastogne and in the aftermath of the Bulge. Whether it was because of Dike or in spite of him, I cannot say. If BoB is to be believed, there are many references to Easy's command "problems". I have to think that one of the reasons Sink was good at his job was because he knew what was going on in his regiment. I'm sure he also felt that Winters could manage whatever problems might arise and NOT come whining to him (Sink) about them.

The point about Foy is, had Winters not reacted to the crisis as he did, there could well have been changes made. I also believe that Sink never in a million years would have thought that Winters would have reacted any differently than he did. Winters probably thought the chances that Dike would freeze were minimal. If he did, I doubt he would have let him lead Easy into battle. As I said previously, Easy had come through the Bulge and was performing well. And Winters was known throughout his career as someone who tried hard to get men to perform to their best ability.

In hindsight, how I should have put it is, Winters would have done what he did whether or not Sink was present. That is just the kind of leader Winters was. The fact that Sink was present I'm sure only solidified Sink's already high opinion of him.

This post has been edited by ss278: Feb 5 2004, 11:14 PM

[appell8]

Jack, this is an excellent subject. And I very much appreciate your observations.

But, as you suggested, it's not in the right place. I hope Gino or the Mod in charge can transplant it to a more appropriate thread.

That said, there's much here to discuss. Thanks, Doug