Introduction
The leadership and the principles of successful warfare are fundamental aspects peculiar to the commander’s military performance. Armed conflicts and military operations are the primary responsibilities of the commander’s mission and the complex issue to examine. According to the ADP 6-0 Mission Command, commanders implement command and control (C2) by integrating the art of command and the science of control.
Therefore, the commander plays a crucial role in combat since he is responsible for making the right decisions promptly, as well as under intense pressure. The wrong and ill-timed decisions lead to severe outcomes, including human casualties, and might affect national strategic objectives. With that said, military commanders must adhere to the core principles of mission command, which facilitates effectiveness and success when delegating responsibilities to subordinates and distributing appropriate resources to meet the assigned tasks.
The seven principles of mission command serve as the framework for a sufficient commander’s performance. One can achieve beneficial results by following these principles, which include “competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk acceptance”1.
This paper examines the LTC Honeycutt’s capacity to appropriately utilize Mission Command that resulted in the victory of the American troops at Dong Ap Bia. As described by Ward and Burns2, Lieutenant Colonel Weldon F. Honeycutt led three companies of the 187th and is widely known as an aggressive officer who was called a Blackjack. He joined the army in 1946 and joined the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team during the Korean War. Honeycutt took his battalion into the battle at Hamburger Hill, which was considered as one of the bloodiest engagements of the Vietnam War.
The Analysis of the Commander’s Performance
The Battle of Hamburger Hill occurred in 1969 and had a significant meaning in terms of general perspective on the Vietnamese War. Despite the American victory and Honeycutt’s view of the heroic performance, the critics were less approbatory of the military leadership’s performance due to irresponsible losses3. The events that occurred within this battle are, therefore, considered as the most complex and disputable events of the Vietnam conflict. The perception of the Vietnamese War in 1969 was torn between the American population and the political spectrum. As such, the primary task was to satisfy both the military and the American public.
Consequently, the political circles were concerned about putting an end to War as the policy of public appeasement, as well as achieving victory as the military target. As a result, the U.S. military established a new strategy, which was based on searching and destroying missions, meaning that the troops were focused on investigating the area in order to detect an enemy. Such a tactic resulted in the 187th Infantry’s attack on Dong Ap Bia Mountain, which was later called Hamburger Hill.
The Hamburger Hill battle occurred at the beginning of May, in 1969, and was a combined operation of South Vietnamese ARVN troops and U.S. Army soldiers from the 3rd Brigade, 101st Division. The American forces were determined to explore the territory in finding the enemy. Eventually, the enemy was observed on the ridge numbered 937 by American Army maps and was detected as the 29th North Vietnamese regiment.
The arms fire over the Hill 937 started on May 10 and was actively bombarding until May 144. LTC Honeycutt immediately responded to the firearms of the Vietnamese enemy. Wright5 mentioned that Weldon Honeycutt was a “feisty veteran of the Korean War,” which means he was prepared for the battle. Three companies of the 187th Airborne began planned maneuvers up the mountain hill. As stated by Geoffrey and Ken Burns6, the battle was so furious and “sometimes so loud and relentless that radios proved useless. The southern side of the hill was assaulted by the 1/506th Airborne led by Lt. Roger Leasure.
A complete attack started after four days of the uphill struggle, and since then, the hill was called the Hamburger Hill because the U.S. attackers were ground up by enemy protectors7. On May 20, the hill was taken by the American Army. Operation Apache Snow was the code name for the joint operation of the U.S. Army and a South Vietnamese infantry regiment against North Vietnamese activities in the A Shau Valley.
Based on combat reports, the goals of the operation were successfully implemented by the U.S. forces. The Hamburger Hill battle took the lives of 48 Americans and nearly 600 North Vietnamese. However, it was considered a controversial aspect of the American Army history by many reporters. Together with some soldiers on the hill, they all doubted the tactical relevance of the combat and the application of regular tactics instead of modern airstrike technology.
The Mission Command Philosophy
Lieutenant Honeycutt managed to demonstrate the leadership qualities of the commander and left a significant mark within the course of American history. By analyzing the basic principles of the mission command, one might notice that some of them were successfully applied during the Hamburger Hill battle. To be more specific, the commander’s leadership and competence are the essential components of successful combat. LTC Honeycutt led the American army to the victory on Hamburger Hill due to a professional combination of the art of command and the science of control.
The U.S. troops addressed many challenges during the fight, such as enemy territory, severe weather conditions, and skilled opponent in unforeseen numbers and with cautiously chosen battlefield to counteract the power of American technology. Nevertheless, they did not undermine the commander’s determination and impetus to take the lead of his combat group.
Furthermore, the 3rd Battalion/187th Infantry Regiment, nicknamed the Rakkasans, had an explicit trust in their commander. Honeycutt led the U.S. to victory during the War in Vietnam when he made his company to be the one that managed to take the vital hill after two abortive attempts of the previous companies. The commander’s performance was based on aggression and a common successful experience that allowed him to form coherent teams under the spirit of trust. The commander assigned each of the companies with a clear division of tasks and responsibilities as the battle group was placed in the operating zone. Thus, the companies were well informed about the shared mission and the centerline of the battle.
Weldon Honeycutt also achieved a shared understanding of individual and cooperative teamwork with his company commanders. As a result, this concept was shared with the soldiers as well. For instance, this can be traced when the commander of Company B, Captain Littman, demanded the instructions from the corps C.P. on May 108.
The commander of the battle group ordered him to relocate the company up the hill, and the Captain expressed full support and readiness to follow the instructions. In addition, the commander of the battalion Rakkasans provided a clear intent through leading by example. LTC Honeycutt injured his back and leg during the battle, however, he still managed to manifest strong courage to fight when he flew to the battalion surgeon and was back to the war zone shortly afterward.
The commander tended to take risks regularly as he flew over the fighting field to investigate his operating companies. He guided them in the axial direction and required support when being under enemy attack. Although, the most crucial and risky decision was made when Lt. Colonel Honeycutt decided to attack the hill alone on May 16 and refused to await the 1/506 group. The commander ordered his battle group to launch the attack because waiting for the 1/506 might give sufficient time for the NVA to rearrange and renew the supplies. In such circumstances, the enemy would become more difficult to destroy.
Conclusion
The core principles of the mission command and its philosophical basis within military strategy enabled to proper examine the commander’s performance and combat power in the Hamburger Hill battle during the Vietnam War. This analysis promotes a better understanding and assessment of the events and mission, as well as the tactics that helped LTC Honeycutt to lead his battalion and the United States to victory.
The Hamburger Hill battle is crucial within the course of the Vietnam War since it might serve as a model for the current commanders to assist in successful operations. It is vital to adhere to the fundamental aspects of the mission command, such as command and control, and learn to demonstrate tremendous skills in combining them along with seven key principles. The commanders must be exemplary leaders who allocate clear and concise tasks, as well as a mission to their subordinates and companies. Setting precise objectives and the purpose of military intervention is the key to the successful outcomes of warfare.
Bibliography
ADP 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces. 2019. Washington, D.C.: Headquarters. Department of the Army.
Daddis, Gregory A. 2017. Withdrawal: Reassessing America’s Final Years in Vietnam. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Fox, Mason E. 2019. “The Vietnam War at Home and Abroad: Soldiers, Military Leadership, and the Antiwar Movement.” Honors Theses, the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga.
Niles, Douglas. 2015. A Noble Cause: American Battlefield Victories in Vietnam. New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC.
Ward, Geoffrey C., and Ken Burns. 2018. The Vietnam War: An Intimate History. New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC.
Wright, James Edward. 2017. Enduring Vietnam: An American Generation and its War. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
Footnotes
- ADP 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces. (Washington, D.C.: Headquarters. Department of the Army, 2019) 1-7.
- Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns. The Vietnam War: An Intimate History. (New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC, 2018), 43.
- Gregory A. Daddis. Withdrawal: Reassessing America’s Final Years in Vietnam. (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017).
- Mason E. Fox. “The Vietnam War at Home and Abroad: Soldiers, Military Leadership, and the Antiwar Movement.” (Honors Theses, University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, 2019).
- James Edward Wright. Enduring Vietnam: An American Generation and its War. (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 2017), 54.
- Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns. The Vietnam War: An Intimate History. (New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC, 2018), 23.
- James Edward Wright. Enduring Vietnam: An American Generation and its War. (New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 2017), 41.
- Douglas Niles. A Noble Cause: American Battlefield Victories in Vietnam. (New York, NY: Penguin Random House LLC, 2015), 87.