Do orders really matter?

[SJPONeill]

Recently Josh Wineera, currently a Fellow at Massey University's Centre for Defence and Security Studies (CDSS), observed the orders process from CO to section commander in a NZLAV company in the field.

His observations form the basis of this paper Do Orders Really Matter? (http://sjponeill.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/do-orders-really-matter-wineera-2010.pdf)

Josh presented his Interbella construct for the complex environment at the COIN Center VBB in September last year and has also released a paper considering domestic methamphetamine issues through a military lens...

[Patrick R Jennings]

Military orders matter to an amazing degree and IMO the U.S. is lacking in the process. I have seen significant breaks between battalion orders and platoon orders. It strikes me that too much time is spent crafting a properly formated order and too little time is spent in delivery. Company commanders are writing op orders that look like they are corps level orders for the invasion of Normandy while platoon commanders seem unable to effectively brief a mission as complex as the one described in the article. Platoon sergeants simply tell their guys where they are going, how long they expect to be there, and what squad has what specific job.

I don't blame this matter on these men. IMO the Army is failing them by creating a culture that calls for power point solutions to school house problems. In short, if an idea can't be expressed on a slide it isn't a good idea. I believe this creates a group that lacks the ability to be flexible while adhering to a basic operations order.

[William F. Owen]

Company commanders are writing op orders that look like they are corps level orders for the invasion of Normandy while platoon commanders seem unable to effectively brief a mission as complex as the one described in the article.
If any Infantry Bn cannot launch a BG attack within 4 hours of being given the mission, by Brigade it is simply badly trained and not fit for purpose. That's the norm. I should be able to do it quicker, if required.
This is why you have SOPs and Drills.
In irregular warfare, you have to be even faster in planning and executing operations.

[SJPONeill]

The time is actually irrelevant without a context...to say that a battalion attack should be conducted in any specific time period is largely moot - is it a quick attack, a deliberate attack, do elements need to cover some distance or complex terrain in order to get into position, are those other chaps (oh, yes, them - the enemy) doing, likely or able to do anything that might drive the time frame...? This applies regardless of the operational environment, be it MCO, COIN, Stabops or PSO (which still get kinetic from time to time)...

[William F. Owen]

The time is actually irrelevant without a context...to say that a battalion attack should be conducted in any specific time period is largely moot.
It is far from moot. It is essential to train to do it quickly and effectively.
The time taken to complete the planning and orders process needs to be finite, especially in training.
If BG HQ you cannot produce a workable plan in <60 mins you are doing something wrong. That allows 3 hours for the Coy and Platoon to carry administration, extract and issue orders. Again, if you cannot do those things, and account for a wide range of varying conditions, within reason, it would strongly imply bad procedures and poor training.
Very often you will need to do it in much less time than <4 hours, because the enemy isn't going to stop to let you dick about and follow all the procedures. If you have to move a long way, then you may have to plan on the move and issue orders on the move, or in parts.
Unless you are hold to that rigour you will not develop the effective procedures and processes.

Quick attack? If its a Quick then you are issuing QBOs over the net, so basically its a contact drill.

[Chris jM]

The importance of the battle-brief. There is merit in considering some
sort of similar brief at the beginning of the orders. Everything else
that follows would therefore be put in better context.

This is something I whole-heartedly agree with. I believe that a set of orders should contain no surprises. Ideally your warning order and hopefully group-planning session with your subordinate commanders would have informed everyone of what is going on. Something that became an unofficial TTP for my platoon at one point, which seemed to work well, was an in-depth planning session as early on in the piece as possible, and then I'd deliver orders to the whole platoon inclusive of every soldier, reasonably late into the piece. Section commanders would question me in front of everyone, then the floor would be opened up to q's as it related to the platoon task. Subsequently the section commanders would take their own sections away for a shortened set of instructions, and things would go from there. I don't know if this would work for everyone but I swore by it - just not during assessments or testing, as that method failed many of the tick-and-flick hoops I needed to jump through.

Secondly, (perhaps controversially?) I think the GSMEAC format is a little out of kilter. I hate the idea of covering off on the ground brief first. If I were king the order would be:

Why-What-Who/How-Where-When

(Sit-Msn-Execution-Ground-Admin-C2)

When someone tells me that a FUP is under this feature, a cut-off posn and spt by fire line is over there and that this is the route with phase lines as shown, all I'm doing is trying to figure out what's going on and what I'm doing. When we cover off on the ground brief first, that's all I see happening around me. A lot of the ground brief is redundant to my role in a plan, too, so best tell me what I'm doing and then let me figure out my 'where' factors as it's covered off later.

I tried to find some info in management and psych text books to see if my views above have any credence when applied to civilian best-practices of receiving instructions. I couldn't, and just confused myself in the process.

[William F. Owen]

If you have access to the British Army Review, I would strongly recommend reading Jim Storr's three articles in Command, and if you have the money, reading his book, the "Human Face of War. (http://zenpundit.com/?p=3286)"

He very clearly lays out that most things done in most sets of orders or in most HQs simply do not need to be done.

[Chris jM]

If you have access to the British Army Review, I would strongly recommend reading Jim Storr's three articles in Command, and if you have the money, reading his book, the "Human Face of War. (http://zenpundit.com/?p=3286)"


Cheers for the heads up. A SWC member sent me Storr's BAR articles (many thanks to that individual) and they were very interesting. The book is pending through my local library and that should occupy me for a while yet.

[SJPONeill]

Secondly, (perhaps controversially?) I think the GSMEAC format is a little out of kilter. I hate the idea of covering off on the ground brief first. If I were king the order would be:

Why-What-Who/How-Where-When

(Sit-Msn-Execution-Ground-Admin-C2)

When someone tells me that a FUP is under this feature, a cut-off posn and spt by fire line is over there and that this is the route with phase lines as shown, all I'm doing is trying to figure out what's going on and what I'm doing. When we cover off on the ground brief first, that's all I see happening around me. A lot of the ground brief is redundant to my role in a plan, too, so best tell me what I'm doing and then let me figure out my 'where' factors as it's covered off later.

Josh and I had a chat about this one after a briefing session on Interbella the other night. It sounds like the content of the ground brief may be a matter of which school one went to - Josh and I were both taught that the ground brief is just that, a brief on the ground environment and NOT a preview of the plan; elements of the plan like FUP, RVs, objectives, LOE, etc are introduced under the Execution phase of the orders. However, it seems that there is another school of thought in which the ground brief goes on (and on and on) for longer and describes the links between the features on the ground and elements of the plan.

[William F. Owen]

(Sit-Msn-Execution-Ground-Admin-C2)

Ground??? The 5 paragraph format is Situation, Mission, Execution, C2, Admin - SMECA.
Ground comes under situation. "Look at your maps/aerial photographs/model."
SMECA also provide a format to planning, - and I am pretty sure that was how it was supposed to be used.

[JMA]

This is why you have SOPs and Drills.
In irregular warfare, you have to be even faster in planning and executing operations.

Yes! This is indeed the truth.

...but now we have to ask why it takes 'hours' of preparation and briefing to get a physical response to an incident out of one of those Beau Geste forts (aka FOBs) used by the Brits in Helmand? Whose behind should be soundly kicked for this?

[Kiwigrunt]

Ground??? The 5 paragraph format is Situation, Mission, Execution, C2, Admin - SMECA.
Ground comes under situation. "Look at your maps/aerial photographs/model."
SMECA also provide a format to planning, - and I am pretty sure that was how it was supposed to be used.

It I remember correctly, it was changed here to GSMEACS just before my time, and that's 15 years. And I remember it pretty much the way SJPONeill describes it:


Josh and I were both taught that the ground brief is just that, a brief on the ground environment and NOT a preview of the plan; elements of the plan like FUP, RVs, objectives, LOE, etc are introduced under the Execution phase of the orders.

In my notes from basic (yup, still got them) I have written:
description/model, outlines, boundaries, maps, north, moonstates, first light, last light, weather forcast.

[Infanteer]

It I remember correctly, it was changed here to GSMEACS just before my time, and that's 15 years. And I remember it pretty much the way SJPONeill describes it:



In my notes from basic (yup, still got them) I have written:
description/model, outlines, boundaries, maps, north, moonstates, first light, last light, weather forcast.

We call it SMESC - Situation, Mission, Execution, Service Support, Command and Signal. I imagine each country has it's twist on it.

Terrain is briefed in the situation para, usually after enemy and friendly.

[JMA]

We call it SMESC - Situation, Mission, Execution, Service Support, Command and Signal. I imagine each country has it's twist on it.

Terrain is briefed in the situation para, usually after enemy and friendly.

In the change from "Admin & Log" to "Service Support" someone seems to have dropped the G in GSMEAC. Careless.

G: Ground
S: Situation
M: Mission
E: Execution
A: Administration and logistics
C: Command and signal

[Perpetual_Student]

BLUF: Orders are very important! Although the extent to which you give an order is left up to debate. Like many of the comments here, orders IMO should be one page. The order should have a schematic of what you are about to do (some would call this an overlay on asetate paper or on PP) one level ups commanders intent, your mission, your commanders intent, SOM (which is really the picture), tasking statements, and a CASEVAC plan. I believe this would give you subordinates enough information to accomplish the mission and work decentralized.

Shouldn't our orders be "mission type" that allow for decentralized execution which would support Mr Owens opinion which we need to make a decision and allow our subordinates the remainder of the time to execute?


We call it SMESC - Situation, Mission, Execution, Service Support, Command and Signal. I imagine each country has it's twist on it.

Terrain is briefed in the situation para, usually after enemy and friendly.

I agree. We use OSMEAC and we brief "ground" under Orientation to get everyone on the same page of where we are operating and what are the key terrain features that we will see/use.