GDG- GDG: Signal Corps and Buford / A.B. Jerome

[jack]

Hi tom.

Sorry it took so long to get back to you.

I've been busy. Even so, common courtesy would have required at least an 
earlier acknowledgement.

In any event, My Source is the History of the U.S. Signal Corp. Given your 
credentials, I am sure you have reviewed it. I am sure Bill Cameron did in 
writing his 4 articles. I have read one of those, and I agree with what he 
said.
He. as are you, was talking about what happened though.

In fact, we are not even discussing the same thing. You seem to think that 
somehow I impled that the members of the Signal Corp failed at Gettysburg. 
Quite the contrary.
I assume that any officer in the service of their country is an honorable 
person working diligently to complete their job. The Signal Corp officers in 
the period we are discussing, no matter how temporary or how disorganized, 
fall into that category. They worked hard and worked the best they could 
with what they had. But, as I tell new people all the time, good people can 
always make a system work out, but a good system can make any people work 
out.

You seem to be implying by your "whatever that means" comment (whatever 
brought that about) that Army Signal Corp was working at it's full potential 
and there was no room for improvement at the time of the battle. The Army 
Signal Cory seems to disagree. Actually, they are almost apologetic in their 
history that at the time of the battle that they were not fully organized as 
per their 3/63 reorganization.

Tom, do you really think that if the Signal Corp has reached it's full 
potential by the Battle of Gettysburg, that they would have felt the need to 
reorganize? If you read the history and compare the TO&E of what they had 
compared to what they thought they should have had, and how it should have 
been organized and deployed, they would not have been more capable? The TO&E 
is in that history. I have seen a suggestion that wire communication was 
considered for LRT, but was left unused. If there had been wire at LRT, do 
you think Sickles could have been throtteled into position on day two? Could 
he have been called forward the day before if some type of central wire 
Communication was in place? Would Rosecreans have pulled out in front of 
Longstreet at Chickamaugua if there had been wire? etc. ectc. ectc. (sic?) 
No you cannot say it, and I cannot say it would have been another way 
either. But I do know (as you do) that the organization was not in place, so 
any such potential could not be realized. The communication systems were no 
more organized at this point than other technological innovations, such as 
repeating fire arms. So, if you say there was an Army Siganl Corp taht tried 
real hard, I agree. If you say it was as good as it could have been, 
well...I don't think you are saying that. But I am not sure what you are 
saying.

We don't talk about this much, but it was these technological innovations 
and incorporation by the Union Army that carried the war. The South had 
railroads, so did the Union. The Union organized them while the South used 
them. The same with Steamships and Communications.

In my time, they had just introduced something called C3. Command Control 
and Communications. I think they call it C4I now. But the communications is 
still in there. The more Communications, the more Control and the more 
Command. It is a differnt name now. But it is the same thing.

In summary, if you really believe the Army Signal Corp was all it could be 
at the time of the battle, you disagree with the Corp itself at the time of 
the battle.

Why else would they have been reorganizing?

Regards,

Jack

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Ryan" <pennmardel at mchsi.com>
To: "GDG" <gettysburg at arthes.com>
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 8:04 PM
Subject: RE: RE: GDG- GDG: Signal Corps and Buford / A.B. Jerome


> Esteemed GDG Member Contributes:
>
>
> <<The point being that what was in place wasan ad hoc arrangement that 
> could
> not live up to it's potential.>>
>
> Jack,
>
> It was neither ad hoc nor not able to live up to its potential (whatever
> that means).  Once again, by the time of the Gettysburg Campaign the SC 
> was
> an experienced organization that functioned superbly before, during and
> after the battle.  I am not sure where you are getting your information, 
> but
> what you are saying is not accurate.  The role of the Union SC during the
> campaign is fully documented in the OR, in Brown's book on the SC, and in
> Bill Cameron's four articles on this organization in Gettysburg Magazine.
> That is enough evidence for me.  If you have some other references that
> support your points, I would be more than anxious to take a look at them.
>
> Tom Ryan
>
>                   ----------------------------------------------------------------
> You may unsubscribe by going to 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/mailman/listinfo/gettysburg
>
> You can add yourself to the GDG map at: 
> http://www.frappr.com/gettysburgdiscussiongroup
>
> View archived posts from May 2004 -  present at 
> http://mailman.arthes.com/pipermail/gettysburg/
>