When does the S.B.O. assume command |
Keith Smith
|
Robin
You raise a very pertinent question here and it should, I think, at least relieve Coll to hear my own response. I am not sure that there is a 'legal' answer but my own view is that when Durnford entered the camp he immediately assumed the command because of his superior rank. It seems clear to me that Pulleine believed this to be the case because he briefed Durnford on the situation and his own orders. On the other hand, Durnford was in command of his own (No. 2) column, with his own separate orders. We all know that he was not ordered by Chelmsford to 'take command of the camp'. He therefore had every right to leave the camp, as he did. The matter of whether he should have done so is another question altogether. KIS |
||||||||||||
|
Robin
|
Keith
Thanks for the reply I undertstood that it had to be a formal posting, but remembering some POW films the SBO is automatically the person in charge by virtue of his presence. Hence my need to understand the circumstances under which the SBO assumes "legal" command. Robin |
||||||||||||
|
Simon Rosbottom
|
Wasn't Brigadier Hackett senior to Brigadier Hicks at Arnhem but Gen Urqhart's orders were that Hicks was to succeed him? Urquhart's reasoning was that Hicks had been on the ground for longer wheras Hackett had just arrived and had a better appreciation of the overall situation. Urquhart resumed command the following day when he returned to Div HQ.
It certainly caused friction between the two at a critical point where 1st Airborne were without clear direction. One of the factors contributing to the overall failure of Market graden. |
||||||||||||
_________________ Simon |
Sawubona
|
Is there any distinction made regarding the branch of service? Would an RA officer if he were SBO be entitled to command a hussar regiment for example? Extreme case, I know, yet I think it makes my question a bit more lucid.
|
||||||||||||
|
Robin
|
Thanks for the replies and personal communication.
If a single military unit is involved the chain of command is clear cut. The problem arises where a situation develops where multiple units congregate in an area as a result of a multi unit particpation in an action.. As i understand it the officer with the highest rank (SBO) automatically assumes command Is this correct? if the officer was from another service eg RAF or RN would that make any difference? There are laid down regulations regarding conduct, does the SBO have the authority to adapt these to the conditions prevailing? Thanks for the great help received so far Robin |
||||||||||||
|
Robin
|
Thanks for the replies and personal communication.
If a single military unit is involved the chain of command is clear cut. The problem arises where a situation develops where multiple units congregate in an area as a result of a multi unit particpation in an action.. As i understand it the officer with the highest rank (SBO) automatically assumes command Is this correct? if the officer was from another service eg RAF or RN would that make any difference? There are laid down regulations regarding conduct, does the SBO have the authority to adapt these to the conditions prevailing? Thanks for the great help received so far Robin |
||||||||||||
|
Michael Boyle
|
Rare day off AND internet access!
The question of command and seniority in the British Army at the time may not be as cut and dry as one would think and seems to have been something of a conundrum in Victorian times. This from "British and Foreign State Papers, Volume 44", 1865, referring to 1846 regulations that continued to leave much to interpretation - "A difficulty of still greater magnitude is found in the enactments intended to regulate rank and command when different regiments and corps do duty together. The general provision is, that the command shall devolve upon the officer highest in rank "in the line of the army," but these words were new in that connexion [sic] , and of undefined signification, and it cannot be determined whether they were intended to include officers holding commissions by brevet, in staff or in special corps...and the question is still productive of frequent controversy, attended with all the evils which have been enumerated. I find much difficulty in proposing any general rule to govern in this particular such a military organization as ours. It is clearly improper to exclude from command, according to their rank, the officers of the military staff, whose duties are as important to the service as any other class of military duties below the chief command, and require equal general capacity, professional skill, and experience...On the other hand, officers whose duties, being confined to a special corps, which remove them from the ordinary service of troops, ought not to take, by seniority, the military command for which their special service has not qualified them." This was of course an opinion piece, here's another from 1851, "The British Officer: His Position, Duties, Emoluments, and Privileges", by Joachim Hayward Stocqueler, under "Commands" - "All commands in the Army belong to the eldest Officers. In case two commissions of the same date interfere [Perusing many army lists reveals there were many batch appointments to various ranks on the same day] , a reference is to be had to former commissions. When Regiments or detachments are quartered together, the senior Officer, whether by brevet or otherwise, commands the whole..." As ever, my above bold reflects the italics in the original, thus his emphasis which would seem to reflect his strongly felt interpretation of any ambiguity in the then current regs. Naturally the former "do duty together" and the latter "quartered together" leave much room for our interpretation! [When(ever) I return home I'll try and pin down the actual wording from the few sets of Queen's Regulations that I've managed to acquire. For now though this odd day off requires of me much in the way of logistical resupply. (I hate midnight laundromats and grocery stores)! Best Michael |
||||||||||||
|
Robin
|
Thanks for all the replies.
I now have clarity on this subject and appreciate the depth and explanations regarding this aspect Robin |
||||||||||||
|
rich
|
You know I'd just be interested to know if there ever was a VOCAL acceptance of command when Durnford and Pulleine met at Isandhlwana?
I only ask this because of an airplane incident which occurred here a few months ago. It seems a passenger jet was in trouble and the pilots were communicating to each other regarding command of the plane. At one point, one pilot (senior) says "My airplane" indicatiiong that overall command devolves to him. That had to be done, of course, for the integrity and the lives aboard. I don't know. Maybe things would have been different if there was a comment such as "My Army!" from Durnford. or 'Your Army!" from Pulleine. |
||||||||||||
_________________ Rich |
Julian whybra
|
Cochrane answers your question:
"Having made all the necessary arrangements for his Column Col. Durnford took over the command from Colonel Pulleine 1/24th Regt. ...... [When Colonel Durnford reached the camp, he received from Colonel Pulleine all the information he could give...](a) [Colonel Pulleine gave over to Colonel Durnford, a verbal state of the troops in camp at the time, and stated the orders he had received, viz., to defend the camp; these words were repeated two or three times in the conversation.](b)" [...when Colonel Pulleine said, �I�m sorry you have come, as you are senior to me, and will of course take command.� Colonel Durnford replied, �I�m not going to interfere with you. I�m not going to remain in camp,� or words to that effect.](a) |
||||||||||||
|
rich
|
Thank you Julian. I'd think from Durnford's final comment that we see his "tactical" bent in fighting. Both positive and negative elements in his decision to leave camp but if one wants a "big picture" of things I don't think it would be the wise move under the circumstances. Of course Durnford was highly intelligent but his bent surely was not in the handling and disposition of a large army. It just wasn't his interest. Arguably two commanders sitting and waiting as one for the Zulu is a great what-if in defensive maneuver!
|
||||||||||||
_________________ Rich |
Julian whybra
|
I forgot to add for those that don't know that Cochrane was the only surviving witness to the conversation and the remarks are collated from his various accounts.
|
||||||||||||
|
Mel
|
Julian
Is there not a contradiction there when Cochrane states that Durnford took command then also states that Durford said he was not going to interfere, not remain in camp etc.? |
||||||||||||
_________________ Mel |
Julian whybra
|
Mel
Possibly but I think the importance lies in the wording. Rather than Durnford taking command, cochrane says "Colonel Pulleine gave over to Colonel Durnford, a verbal state of the troops in camp at the time...[etc]" followed by "Colonel Pulleine said, �I�m sorry you have come, as you...will of course take command.� Colonel Durnford replied, �I�m not going to interfere with you. I�m not going to remain in camp�. In other words, command is relinquished and offered. Durnford hears him out and declines. The trouble is he didn't decline de facto. He stated what he would do with his own troops, fiar enough, but did interfere with ceertain arrangements at the camp, liek Cavaye's disposition. As always, the devil is in the detail. |
||||||||||||
|
When does the S.B.O. assume command |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.