We can disagree on that and that but not on that...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
As I suggested earlier it may all be in the semantics.
Not that (3), I agree with that. It's a feature of this discussion.
Quote:
I tend to shy away from the word 'questions' because it may be construed as order being 'questioned'.
See? That's just being finicky and over semantically involved. :D
Quote:
There is a big difference between in combat and during training for combat.
That (1). The difference should be as slight as one can make it. I agree with the rest of that thought. Particularly this:
Quote:
It is in this period of training for war that you allow troops to seek clarity, to discuss drills and tactics and reach a level where they understand what is expected of them and the possible tactical options that they will be required to take part in.
However, this is a reversion to semantics:
Quote:
(note: no use of the word 'question'.)
We each had / have a choice, I never object to questions, the more nervous types often do. ;)
Quote:
Once you cock your weapon and head out the time for seeking clarity is over. You just do as you are damn well told.
That (2). I certainly did not always do that and I rather doubt you did either. That, frankly is dangerous and just wrong. Things change and you have to adapt. You cannot ask for thinking Officers and NCOs -- and other ranks -- on the one hand then ask for robot like total compliance on the other; you can't have it both ways (I'd also note we're back to that trust thingy... :cool:).
In 1966 in Viet Nam, I was unfortunately * attached to Dave Hackworth, then an Acting Bn Cdr, at one time. He gave me a mission using the Platoon of which I was the acting PL and I said "Yes, Sir" then went about it in a totally different manner than the way he had over directed be employed. He was afterwards quite torqued but couldn't say or do much but grumble because we had been successful and had no casualties. Aside from that incident I have many, many times disregarded orders, in peace and in combat, and done so with variations from very slight to totally ignoring and turning off my radio. I strongly encourage anyone who thinks to do the same. YMMV. :D
* He blustered and boasted a lot, bluffed -- poorly -- a lot...
Trusr is necessary but is indeed hard to garner and to maintain...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
wm
While I do not disagree that better training promotes trust, I submit that trust is rather hard to practice when those outside the chain of command... the knee jerk response by certain elected officials and their staffs to such stories.
Sadly true and an indictment of the media and the Congress but not so much those Leaders who were forced into such a position. That story, in variations, is all too common. It's also worldwide though we have over developed it here in the US.
Quote:
I seem to recall Bn Cdrs micromanaging platoon-level fights in VN from their helicopters. With that kind of background informing the leadership development of the mentors of much of today's military senior leadership, is it any wonder that the best we might hope for from the current crop of seniors is something like a Reaganesque "trust but verify"?
Goes back further than that. Tales of Patton and even Bradley visiting the Troops and getting over directive abound. It got kicked up a notch in Korea after the mess settled down into trench warfare; too many senior Commanders (and their Staffs...) with too little to do could visit and 'engineer success.' Sad.
In Viet Nam the trend was excacerbated by the fact of major shortfalls in Captains and Senior NCOs in 67-68 -- those Bn Cdrs learned 2LTs and brand new SGTs would do anything you asked but didn't know much and so need a lot of supervision...:rolleyes:
The trend and tendency was / is reinforced by the type of low intensity warfare in VN and today; gives the senior folks with too little to do a chance to piddle. That's particularly bothersome in an Army that prides itself on 'zero defects' like performance and staying busy. It's also all too easy with today's Comm and surveillance assets...
It, as Bob says, is not going away and is likely to get worse before it gets better. The saving factor is that such foolishness cannot be practiced in a major, high intensity rapidly moving conflict and we can learn to do it right -- after unnecessarily killing too many people and firing the nervous... :(
Quote:
I can only speak to the American military, based on my experience. One hopes that other nations' militaries are not equally "blessed" with such trust and oversight.
Based on my observation, it's endemic worldwide, the more democratic the nation, the worse the problem... :wry:
Different strokes, non semantic edition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
I'm not sure I fully understand what you are meaning here (and the circumstances where a bn comd issues patrol orders directly to a platoon - where was your coy comd?)
In reverse order, The Platoon was a Battalion Reconnaissance Platoon which did reconnaissance and surveillance missions as well as some limited economy of force actions. Only one per Battalion, assigned to Headquarters Company (which does not exercise tactical command). It is one of three tactical Platoons (Recon, Antitank, Mortar) which operate independently and directly under Bn Control. They are generally placed under Operational Control of other Bns only rarely; this was one of those rare times. Indeed, during seven years in such platoons in three units, that was one of only two times, both quite brief, such detachment was experienced.
I was given an over prescriptive order for a reconnaissance and an economy of force mission combined. Mission was not a particular problem but the 'how I think this should be done' way it was couched, engendered in large part due to that trust issue; he didn't know me or the capability of the Platoon, I didn't know him (that happens often in large Armies that rotate people frequently) was IMO the wrong approach, likely to result in failure and with a chance of own casualties. So, rather than get in an argument I would lose, I just said "Yes, Sir" and went ahead and did it my way.
Quote:
Are you saying that a Bn Comd gave orders for a patrol more than the mission (being what to do) and instructed on the execution (how to do it) as well?
Exactly. Most would never do that, Hackworth, OTOH, was a legend in his own mind... :rolleyes:
Quote:
I can't think of circumstances where that would be required or advisable other than where the platoon commander is an absolute greenhorn or in an 'in contact' defensive setting where the movement tolerances are extremely tight.
I agree -- even given a cross attachment where neither person knows the other and the competence of the tasked organization is not known, it's rare but it does happen.
Quote:
What I learned at the feet of the masters and adopted myself was to brief a patrol commander on his task (mission) then tell him to go away and plan his patrol but before he issued orders to come back to me and run the outline plan past me. In this way I could get a feel for the competence of the commander while at the same time being able to influence the conduct to some degree (while knowing that once the patrol commander was on his own he could do almost as he pleased regardless of what I had said).\
That's the way it's done ordinarily. For this particular mission, there was a time problem and that's why we were doing it instead of his own Reconnaissance Platoon. Which might've had a problem doing it in any event, that platoon had been combined with that Battalion's Antitank Platoon into what they called the 'Recondo' Platoon, it was, in essence a junior rifle company and was used as such and thus did not do reconnaissance missions often.
Quote:
As stated I never deviated from my orders because I was never told how to do it
Well, good for you. Everyone should be so lucky. It is indeed a rare circumstance to be told 'how' but it does happen.
Quote:
,,,but suggest that where patrol comds find themselves in such a situation where they deviate from the orders on how to do it the troopies don't need to know this is happening. The last thing one needs, as it is bad for discipline, is for a general belief to develop that orders are negotiable where all junior officers and NCOs believe that they can decide which orders to follow and which to ignore.
We can disagree on that with a situation dependent caveat (that approach is sometimes needed, more often not. The Troops aren't stupid...). I always had more confidence in myself, in the other NCOs and the Troops than that. In my experience that vaguely martinetish attitude certainly exists and is in fact too prevalent but everyone doesn't operate that way. Fortunately IMO.
Don't know, didn't see any. I suspect most occurred after my time there. However...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Now moving along to the combat refusals in Vietnam. I assume there were valid reasons for these? If not how did this cancer start and spread?
I think there were probably two poles:
- A few of what most would consider a sensible refusal to do something illegal or bone stupid that the system virtually had to illuminate and that many resulted in a mere wrist slap while a very few were miscarriages of justice.
- A few egregious acts of sheer cowardice (or abysmal stupidity based on flawed principle) that merited a more harsh punishment than they received with perhaps the odd miscarriage of justice.
...And the majority of those refusals fell in between those two poles. Without being present and witnessing events, all we can do is speculate. I tend not to put much faith in written ex post facto reports -- most have an agenda. Come to think of it, that's true of most records and reports out of Viet Nam IMO. Lot of fudging went on... :rolleyes:
I can however go beyond speculation on the spread of the problem -- political correctness and diffidence caused by changes in moral values in the west generally during the 1960s and by the perceived unpopularity (not only perceived with respect to the Media and most politicians, just with respect to the bulk of the US populace...) of that war. :eek:
ADDED: Missed this
Quote:
...but I suggest it is a test of character for the patrol comd to resist the temptation to 'wave a flag' saying look what I'm doing. I'm flipping the Bn Comd.
Agree, generally nothing should be said but IMO, any questions from observant Troops should be answered honestly with an explanation that avoids the perception of "look what I'm doing..."
Well, Ulenspiegel can speak for himself.
However I suspect that "Quality of academic staff and differences in the curriculum (leadership vs management)" refers to the fact that the Germans selected instructors versus the US then and now assigning whoever was available without too much regard for capability (which is far from being the same thing as 'qualification') all too often...
General Philip Sheridan summed it up well in the 1870s when he noted with respect to the recent Prussian victory and a fascination in the US with them "We will make a mistake if we adopt the mechanics of the Prussian system rather than its intent." (or words to that effect; I let a friend borrow the book {LINK}). Sheridan also noted that whenever the Europeans had a war, the US army adopted the cap of the winning side -- a proclivity that still, quite unfortunately, holds true. :rolleyes:
On the leadership versus management. An accurate slam. We in the US wrongly concentrate on the thing that can be 'measured' with metrics rather than on the far more important competency that can only be subjectively evaluated -- until a lot of people are killed unnecessarily. That produces a metric... :mad:
Someone listened to Von Schell...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Von Schell's book provides a good intelligent look in the US system by an outsider with no malicious intent.
He was heard. The Tactics Department at Fort Leavenworth used to preface their block of instruction with words to this effect:
"What we are going to teach you will work on a mild, clear June day in gently rolling terrain without heavy vegetation against a similarly organized and equipped enemy force provided you have all your personnel, they are adequately trained and properly equipped and all your equipment is functional. If ANY of those parameters are changed, you will have to adapt."
Hopefully, they're still doing that and, more hopefully, the students hear and will heed the message.