2nd Lieutenant Duties

[Sscul2]

Hoping the expertise on this forum can help me find information on the duties of a 2nd Lieutenant in the Union Army. Thanks so much!

 

[rpkennedy]

Hoping the expertise on this forum can help me find information on the duties of a 2nd Lieutenant in the Union Army. Thanks so much!

IIRC, the 2nd lieutenant (assuming there were both a captain and 1st lieutenant present) would assist the captain with handling the 1st Platoon or could command the platoon in the captain's absence or if he were busy with other duties or concerns.

Ryan

 

[Youngblood]

Doesnt a Capt lead a Company?
And a Lt is a platoon leader?

 

[rpkennedy]

Doesnt a Capt lead a Company?
And a Lt is a platoon leader?

I glanced at the school of tactics booklet and it appears that the captain commands 1st Platoon as well as the Company and the 1st lieutenant commands 2nd Platoon. The 2nd lieutenant's position was to the rear of the center of 1st Platoon but he has no clear command responsibilities.

Ryan

 

[rpkennedy]

As a follow up, it appears that the 2nd lieutenant acted as the XO for the 1st Platoon (under the captain) and the 3rd lieutenant did the same for the 1st lieutenant in the 2nd Platoon.

Ryan

 

[Camp Randall Armory]

I hate to tell you guys this but you are wrong about this. Command and control of the company is not like modern times. The company was the only formal unit. Things like Platoon and section breaks were only means to break the company into smaller tactical units as the situation dictated. Yes, when the company broke into platoon the Captain would take charge of one and the most senior lieutenant the other, but this was really the extent of it. The concept of Soldiers belong to a specific platoon with a specific Lieutenant, and several platoons reporting to the commander with an executive officer for administrative duties did not exist in the American Civil War. I don't think I have seen the term XO or executive officer used in a civil war book.

If one reads the regs you don't find many specific duties for the Lieutenants. Sure, they could be officers of the day or take charge of details, but it's pretty much assist the Captain in whatever he needs you to do. The Lt's main job was to wait until his commander was killed or promoted so they could take charge. Also staff officers usually were taken from line LTs.

 

[wuzreb]

I hate to tell you guys this but you are wrong about this. Command and control of the company is not like modern times. The company was the only formal unit. Things like Platoon and section breaks were only means to break the company into smaller tactical units as the situation dictated. Yes, when the company broke into platoon the Captain would take charge of one and the most senior lieutenant the other, but this was really the extent of it. The concept of Soldiers belong to a specific platoon with a specific Lieutenant, and several platoons reporting to the commander with an executive officer for administrative duties did not exist in the American Civil War. I don't think I have seen the term XO or executive officer used in a civil war book.

If one reads the regs you don't find many specific duties for the Lieutenants. Sure, they could be officers of the day or take charge of details, but it's pretty much assist the Captain in whatever he needs you to do. The Lt's main job was to wait until his commander was killed or promoted so they could take charge. Also staff officers usually were taken from line LTs.

Responding 8 years later to add, in my family tree I have a 1st lieutenant of Missouri volunteer cavalry whose job was to command one of the companies in his regiment. He remained as company commander from mustering in until he applied for and received a medical discharge due to severe illness.

I imagine there was a captain somewhere nominally in command, but the lieutenant is on record as actively leading and commanding that company.

In further reading in the trans-Mississippi theater, I've noted where elements from different companies might be borrowed for one mission or another, but they were never given the name of platoon. They were just detachments of men, led by captain or lieutenant so and so for a specific purpose, and then returned to their respective companies when through. That's just my admittedly limited observation.

Respectfully &c

 

[captaindrew]

Responding 8 years later to add, in my family tree I have a 1st lieutenant of Missouri volunteer cavalry whose job was to command one of the companies in his regiment. He remained as company commander from mustering in until he applied for and received a medical discharge due to severe illness.

I imagine there was a captain somewhere nominally in command, but the lieutenant is on record as actively leading and commanding that company.

In further reading in the trans-Mississippi theater, I've noted where elements from different companies might be borrowed for one mission or another, but they were never given the name of platoon. They were just detachments of men, led by captain or lieutenant so and so for a specific purpose, and then returned to their respective companies when through. That's just my admittedly limited observation.

Respectfully &c

The way things should be by the book and what they were in reality on the field were certainly not always the same. In a perfect world a captain would be the company commander but due to circumstances/attrition it wasn't uncommon for a Lt. to be in charge for a time. It's been a while since I read any cavalry manuals but in a full strength infantry company there would be several instances where they'd break into platoons, picket duty for one example. One platoon would be at the front while the other would be in reserve and would rotate in and out to keep the guys fresh. But as things wore on the company size shrank drastically sometimes to the point where breaking into platoons wasn't practical.

 

[wuzreb]

The way things should be by the book and what they were in reality on the field were certainly not always the same. In a perfect world a captain would be the company commander but due to circumstances/attrition it wasn't uncommon for a Lt. to be in charge for a time. It's been a while since I read any cavalry manuals but in a full strength infantry company there would be several instances where they'd break into platoons, picket duty for one example. One platoon would be at the front while the other would be in reserve and would rotate in and out to keep the guys fresh. But as things wore on the company size shrank drastically sometimes to the point where breaking into platoons wasn't practical.

I was actually surprised to find my kinsman the lieutenant in charge of a company. But it appeared to have been thus basically from its inception, he enlisted in January of 1863, was lieutenant in charge of the company in February, and he stayed as such until he mustered out due to medical disability in September of '64.

I don't know the command structure of his regiment, the 11th Missouri Cavalry, volunteers, so I'm unaware if he was the only junior company commander, or how it worked out. But I found it curious!

I didn't mean to say companies were never broken up into smaller units, of course they were. I've read any number of reports where men were selected even from several companies, and pieced together as a unit to go perform some other task. I just meant to say I've never seen the word platoon used during the Civil War. In my observation, they would say detachments or details, or perhaps squads.

 

[captaindrew]

I was actually surprised to find my kinsman the lieutenant in charge of a company. But it appeared to have been thus basically from its inception, he enlisted in January of 1863, was lieutenant in charge of the company in February, and he stayed as such until he mustered out due to medical disability in September of '64.

I don't know the command structure of his regiment, the 11th Missouri Cavalry, volunteers, so I'm unaware if he was the only junior company commander, or how it worked out. But I found it curious!

I didn't mean to say companies were never broken up into smaller units, of course they were. I've read any number of reports where men were selected even from several companies, and pieced together as a unit to go perform some other task. I just meant to say I've never seen the word platoon used during the Civil War. In my observation, they would say detachments or details, or perhaps squads.

When I hear squads, detachments, or squads I'm thinking a small group, a handful of privates led by a NCO, which was certainly an every day happening, sent out for accomplishing some sort of chore like a water detail, foraging detail, guard duty. A full strength infantry company was composed of two platoons, the word is definitely out there and a section of School of the Company in all the manuals devoted to it.

 

[Dan Kohli]

I want to say that cavalry maneuvering their companies by platoon were pretty common. But I have not dug to deeply into the manuals in a while.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

The way things should be by the book and what they were in reality on the field were certainly not always the same. In a perfect world a captain would be the company commander but due to circumstances/attrition it wasn't uncommon for a Lt. to be in charge for a time. It's been a while since I read any cavalry manuals but in a full strength infantry company there would be several instances where they'd break into platoons, picket duty for one example. One platoon would be at the front while the other would be in reserve and would rotate in and out to keep the guys fresh. But as things wore on the company size shrank drastically sometimes to the point where breaking into platoons wasn't practical.

I believe there were instances, after long bloody campaigns or battles, where 2nd Lts were the ranking officer in the entire REGIMENT. (Which likely would have been around company strength at that point)

 

[danny]

Give the platoon sergeant your full attention

 

[wuzreb]

Give the platoon sergeant your full attention

Always!

 

[wuzreb]

I want to say that cavalry maneuvering their companies by platoon were pretty common. But I have not dug to deeply into the manuals in a while.

It is entirely possible! There is so much I don't know, and the inner workings of military movements are high on the list. I have not come across the word platoon in use, but it's undoubtedly because I have not read far enough! Cavalry did have some rather different terminology.

 

[wuzreb]

I believe there were instances, after long bloody campaigns or battles, where 2nd Lts were the ranking officer in the entire REGIMENT. (Which likely would have been around company strength at that point)

Sadly you're right! Sometimes they could have held roll call on a phone booth.

 

[RedRover]

Responding 8 years later to add, in my family tree I have a 1st lieutenant of Missouri volunteer cavalry whose job was to command one of the companies in his regiment. He remained as company commander from mustering in until he applied for and received a medical discharge due to severe illness.

I imagine there was a captain somewhere nominally in command, but the lieutenant is on record as actively leading and commanding that company.

A captain was the rank of the common company commanders of the armies. But where a captain was absent, for whatever reason, the next junior officer would have the right of command in his absence (the 1st Lieutenant). If the 1st Lieutenant was absent too, the 2nd lieutenant would command the company.

Where officers were missing, when a unit formed in line, sergeants replaced them, and corporals replaced the sergeants, etc.

When there were no field officers with a regiment (Colonel, Lt. Col., and Major) the senior captain present commanded it. His own company, consequently, would have been under a lieutenant.

In further reading in the trans-Mississippi theater, I've noted where elements from different companies might be borrowed for one mission or another, but they were never given the name of platoon. They were just detachments of men, led by captain or lieutenant so and so for a specific purpose, and then returned to their respective companies when through. That's just my admittedly limited observation.

Indeed. A detachment is just a detachment, no matter its size or composition, whether it included whole companies or less...

A "platoon" is just the name of a subdivision of half of a company when formed in line of battle, as each company in line of battle, was divided into two platoons. For example, were a company formed in line for parade, etc., and a platoon is ordered off on detachment, it ceases to be a "platoon" when it leaves the line of battle. It's just a detachment. And the company, although now reduced in half by the detachment, would remain THE company, and despite the detachment would yet form in two equal platoons until their return.

When a company in line of battle broke ranks, and was not formed in line of battle, there were no platoons, as they were just a sub-division of the line of battle. The only sub-division of a company out of ranks was as administrative "squads" (usually four per company) under a non-commissioned officer who kept tabs on their squads, managed their rationing, etc. Each squad N.C.O. was answerable to one of the subaltern officers of the company (the lieutenants)....

Note: in the Cavalry tactics, A cavalry regiment's ten companies were formed into five squadrons. Thus a "squadron" in line, composed of two companies, was subdivided into four equal platoons, 1st through 4th from right to left. The first two (1st and 2nd Platoons) of a squadron comprised the squadron's "1st division," and the 3rd & 4th Platoons the "2nd division."

When a single cavalry company paraded in line alone, it was divided into two platoons.

 

[wuzreb]

A captain was the rank of the common company commanders of the armies. But where a captain was absent, for whatever reason, the next junior officer would have the right of command in his absence (the 1st Lieutenant). If the 1st Lieutenant was absent too, the 2nd lieutenant would command the company.

Where officers were missing, when a unit formed in line, sergeants replaced them, and corporals replaced the sergeants, etc.

View attachment 583270
View attachment 583271

When there were no field officers with a regiment (Colonel, Lt. Col., and Major) the senior captain present commanded it. His own company, consequently, would have been under a lieutenant.




Indeed. A detachment is just a detachment, no matter its size or composition, whether it included whole companies or less...

View attachment 583158


A "platoon" is just the name of a subdivision of half of a company when formed in line of battle, as each company in line of battle, was divided into two platoons. For example, were a company formed in line for parade, etc., and a platoon is ordered off on detachment, it ceases to be a "platoon" when it leaves the line of battle. It's just a detachment. And the company, although now reduced in half by the detachment, would remain THE company, and despite the detachment would yet form in two equal platoons until their return.

View attachment 583269

When a company in line of battle broke ranks, and was not formed in line of battle, there were no platoons, as they were just a sub-division of the line of battle. The only sub-division of a company out of ranks was as administrative "squads" (usually four per company) under a non-commissioned officer who kept tabs on their squads, managed their rationing, etc. Each squad N.C.O. was answerable to one of the subaltern officers of the company (the lieutenants)....

View attachment 583272


Note: in the Cavalry tactics, A cavalry regiment's ten companies were formed into five squadrons. Thus a "squadron" in line, composed of two companies, was subdivided into four equal platoons, 1st through 4th from right to left. The first two (1st and 2nd Platoons) of a squadron comprised the squadron's "1st division," and the 3rd & 4th Platoons the "2nd division."

When a single cavalry company paraded in line alone, it was divided into two platoons.

That is a ton of stuff I did not know! So a platoon in this Civil War context is basically a portable, perishable designation. Not a permanent designation they carry with them everywhere. Interesting!

This is a level of detail I never got into when I was enjoying Civil War geekery quite some years ago, so it's interesting to come back and learn new things. Thank you!