Planning and the proverbial "Squirrel!"

[TAH]

Somewhere from the late 80s to mid 90s we became the Russians.

We went from a commander-centric execution/end-state focused organization to a staff-focused planning centric one.

We even publish it two FM now as oppoed to one.

Orders and the "Orders Process" grew. So staffs grew, so more annexes could be written/published etc.

Brigade level and below should be able to crank-out an robust FRAGO in 2 hours or less. Companies should be able to issue their orders within an hour of getting theirs from higher and it should never be longer then 30 munites. Oral only at company level.

[William F. Owen]

Oral only at company level.

...there may be a better way to say that!

[Tom Odom]

...there may be a better way to say that!

filthy beast...

[Fuchs]

Hmm, I read an article in Armor Magazine (or was it infantry?) from the 90's which was about how a U.S. division fought its way through France and Germany iirc almost entirely without written orders.

I do also recall a document about a U.S. Corps wargame from about 82' where the U.S. corps in Germany had invited iirc Balck and v.Mellenthin to participate. The two veterans stressed how decision-making had to be done in a few minutes, and both the two veterans and the American team were able to put together a mobile defence battle plan for the corps in a few minutes. The veteran's plan was more daring and radical, but both chose the same basic approach.

Officers up to army commander level (above corps) had issued 'spoken' orders without written backup regularly in WW2; in Wehrmacht, Waffen SS and Patton.


Now, could someone please tell me why only written orders should be used above Coy level? TAH?

[Steve Blair]

Now, could someone please tell me why only written orders should be used above Coy level? TAH?

Very simple, Fuchs. CYA.

[Fuchs]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_your_ass ?

So why exactly should a modern officer in a should-be command system have a need to cover his rear like that when officers who served under a murderous, micro-management-obsessed dictator didn't?


Isn't "CYA" an explanation for an interim solution instead of for a really good command system?

edit: Lest I forget; aren't spoken orders not actually preferable for "CYA" because their existence can be denied?

[Steve Blair]

Because it's the business school mentality that's been drilled into the US forces since the middle 1950s, Fuchs. That's why. And no, I don't support it or believe in it. You would be sadly confused if you thought I believed that the current "system" was a good thing.

[Cavguy]

Hmm, I read an article in Armor Magazine (or was it infantry?) from the 90's which was about how a U.S. division fought its way through France and Germany iirc almost entirely without written orders.

It was by Don Vandergriff in ARMOR about a decade ago about MG Wood and 4th Armored Division. I have it in my files somewhere. Will try and find a link.

[Jobu]

To keep pace with the fight, or the information overload that we have these days? When fax machines began showing up in the field in 1983 I could see that the floodgates were just starting to open up, information-wise.

That's a good question...and one that goes back to my original point. Are we in an age where it is expected to both digest and produce a large amount of info (for CYA and other reasons)? Does that explain the large staff sizes? Is there any turning back? I'm not sure using the excuse that there's too much info will hold water these days.

[Kiwigrunt]

Is there any turning back? I'm not sure using the excuse that there's too much info will hold water these days.

Probably not, we simply haven't got enough info to make that case.

[Eden]

That's a good question...and one that goes back to my original point. Are we in an age where it is expected to both digest and produce a large amount of info (for CYA and other reasons)? Does that explain the large staff sizes? Is there any turning back? I'm not sure using the excuse that there's too much info will hold water these days.

Staffs are large because commanders are asking them to do a lot. They are large because we have rank-inflation, with three-stars doing a one-star job and so forth. They are large because we are doing things jointly, which requires more liaison and coordination. They are large because it is much easier to start doing things than it is to stop doing things. They are large because the headquarters they service don't have to move.

They are large because commanders have the leisure to micromanage (see rank inflation, above). They are large because many of the functions that used to be performed by subordinate units are now performed by staffs. They are large because our current operations are labor-intensive when it comes to staff work; you can't do key leader engagement, for instance, with a computer program.

They are also large because a lot of information is coming into the headquarters, but any body who thinks that is the prime mover is mistaken. It is much more a result of American military culture meeting Parkinson's Law

[Pete]

True enough, Jobu, but some information is a lot more important than other information. "Glass cockpit synrome" is said to happen when a pilot becomes overloaded with information; it also happens to air traffic controllers or new lieutenants in FDCs. In the Army people are supposed to stay in their own lanes and do their jobs to the best of their ability, including staff officers working in their comparatively trivial niches. The net result is that we're overwhelming ourselves with our own staff processes.

When the COIN manual was being conceptualized I believe Gen. Mattis said that journalists made some of the best contributions, probably because they'e big-picture guys who don't stay in narrow little lanes.

[Fuchs]

edited away

[TAH]

filthy beast...

especially if we allow females into the Combat Arms