Small unit leadership. Units down to the squad level (13 Soldiers/Marines), are in control of themselves. They are given objectives, constraints, and all relevant info, then told to achieve the mission. They’re also in constant communication with other nearby units. There is no solid plan. It is all contingency.
Squad leaders get a 5 paragraph order: SMEAC
Situation: What the battle field look like.
Mission: What needs to be accomplished. Who, what, when, where, and most importantly, why? The why lets unit make adjustments as necessary.
Execution: Overall greater goal, enemy weak spots, and what other units will be doing for the mission.
Command & signal: Command structure and communication matters
These units figure it out on their own and coordinate with other units that are in control of themselves also. From what I hear, Russian troops are all dependent on commands from an officer! lol. That would be insane in the American military. Everything would get paralyzed every time there is an unexpected issues, which in battle, is basically all there is. Battle is a series of unexpected issues. To quote the philosopher Mike Tyson, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
tl;dr: The American military is trained to function assuming units know how they function best and everything will go to shit. It’s designed to maximize individual strengths and be chaotic af. American units don’t know what they’re doing until they’re doing it.
And yet, it’s a famously specialised force with tons of complexity and supply chain overhead. Pretty much every other military is flying by the seats of their pants, by comparison, whether it’s a Canadian soldier with the MOS of “dunno, boats maybe, and your equipment is definitely filled with mold”, or a North Korean soldier that can change their own orders with a bribe of pork.
I feel like all four people in this document (including the author) had an angle of some kind.
Ah, isn’t that the key of it, though? A highly specialized force knows not just what they’re assigned to do, but what they’re supposed to do for the overall operation, making adaptation both possible and likely to not result in catastrophic failure.
Yeah, I’m not saying it’s wrong - pretty much nobody gives rigid instructions a good review after working under them. Just another reason there’s a whiff of saltyness in the paper pictured.
Russian troops are all dependent on commands from an officer!
To me, that sounds like they never updated command and communication strategies from, oh… the 18th century? This works great where you have regimented battalions with muskets and bayonets, all lined up on a single battlefield with clear lines of sight. But introduce so much as an opposing guerilla unit or machine guns (let alone tanks, air support, and artillery you can’t even see) and it all goes to hell in a hand-basket.
There’s actually a very good reason why Russia operates like that - mutinies. If you give junior officers authority, in a political system like Russia’s where the leadership’s legitimacy is purely based on power and self-interest, they might decide they’d rather be the ones in charge. This was perfectly demonstrated when they gave a military unit autonomy, and that resulted in the Wagner mutiny.
Thank you! 😊 It gets more true every day. Yours is cool too. To me, it has a sense of paradox or maybe being on a different schedule than the rest of us.
Small unit leadership. Units down to the squad level (13 Soldiers/Marines), are in control of themselves. They are given objectives, constraints, and all relevant info, then told to achieve the mission. They’re also in constant communication with other nearby units. There is no solid plan. It is all contingency.
Squad leaders get a 5 paragraph order: SMEAC
These units figure it out on their own and coordinate with other units that are in control of themselves also. From what I hear, Russian troops are all dependent on commands from an officer! lol. That would be insane in the American military. Everything would get paralyzed every time there is an unexpected issues, which in battle, is basically all there is. Battle is a series of unexpected issues. To quote the philosopher Mike Tyson, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”
tl;dr: The American military is trained to function assuming units know how they function best and everything will go to shit. It’s designed to maximize individual strengths and be chaotic af. American units don’t know what they’re doing until they’re doing it.
An old NCO once told me that “the first casualty of war is the plan.” I don’t know where he got that from, but I’ve always liked that quote.
The great philosopher Mike Tyson famously said “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face”
It was Eisenhower maybe that said “plans are worthless, but planning is invaluable.”
Yup, if you don’t get down to plan E, you’re not running a war, you’re executing a genocide.
Iirc it was some German general around the first world war.
Edit: it is probably based on von Moltke the elder a prussian field marshal
„Kein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit über das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus.“
That’s awesome, thanks for sharing it.
I’ve also heard it as “no plan survives contact with the enemy.”
And yet, it’s a famously specialised force with tons of complexity and supply chain overhead. Pretty much every other military is flying by the seats of their pants, by comparison, whether it’s a Canadian soldier with the MOS of “dunno, boats maybe, and your equipment is definitely filled with mold”, or a North Korean soldier that can change their own orders with a bribe of pork.
I feel like all four people in this document (including the author) had an angle of some kind.
I was in the US military, so that was my angle. Don’t know about the rest. @[email protected] seems like they might have been in the US military also.
Ah, isn’t that the key of it, though? A highly specialized force knows not just what they’re assigned to do, but what they’re supposed to do for the overall operation, making adaptation both possible and likely to not result in catastrophic failure.
A highly trained soldier knows what they’re supposed to do because they know what they aren’t supposed to do.
Yeah, I’m not saying it’s wrong - pretty much nobody gives rigid instructions a good review after working under them. Just another reason there’s a whiff of saltyness in the paper pictured.
To me, that sounds like they never updated command and communication strategies from, oh… the 18th century? This works great where you have regimented battalions with muskets and bayonets, all lined up on a single battlefield with clear lines of sight. But introduce so much as an opposing guerilla unit or machine guns (let alone tanks, air support, and artillery you can’t even see) and it all goes to hell in a hand-basket.
There’s actually a very good reason why Russia operates like that - mutinies. If you give junior officers authority, in a political system like Russia’s where the leadership’s legitimacy is purely based on power and self-interest, they might decide they’d rather be the ones in charge. This was perfectly demonstrated when they gave a military unit autonomy, and that resulted in the Wagner mutiny.
Thanks for this perspective. I keep forgetting that culture is everything about how these social mechanisms exist and operate.
Nothing relevant to your comment, I just love your username.
Thank you! 😊 It gets more true every day. Yours is cool too. To me, it has a sense of paradox or maybe being on a different schedule than the rest of us.
Le grand art, c’est de changer pendant la bataille. Malheur au général qui arrive au combat avec un système.
The great art is to change during the battle. Woe to the general who comes to battle with a system.
Napoléon Bonaparte (google translation)