• I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.autism.place
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    129
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    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.
    • Admin & logistics: Beans (food), bullets (ammo), band-aids (medical info/gear/plans), & bad guys (EPWs)
    • 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.

    • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • zerosignal@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 month ago

        The great philosopher Mike Tyson famously said “everybody has a plan until they get punched in the face”

      • weker01@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        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.“

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      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.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 month ago

          A highly trained soldier knows what they’re supposed to do because they know what they aren’t supposed to do.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 month ago

          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.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      1 month ago

      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.

      • MouseKeyboard@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        1 month ago

        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.

        • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 month ago

          Thanks for this perspective. I keep forgetting that culture is everything about how these social mechanisms exist and operate.

    • cabillaud@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      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)

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 month ago

    NCOs and local autonomy is OP. The soldier with the most info is the one with a gun in his hand. The closer the command structure is to that information source, the better everything runs.

    • pandapoo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      This post is already too credible, so what the fuck, I might as well continue to dishonor it’s noncredibility even further.

      You can’t really compare a modern major Arab army, to a western army. They serve different functions.

      Major Arab armies, at least contemporary ones, are designed to primarily preserve the internal social order and hierarchy. They’re internal security forces, with war planes and tanks.

      Which presents another problem, coup d’etats. You can’t risk your command staff aligning against your ruling class, or monarch, so they should not trained, or inclined, to cooperate too much. So you put rivals in charge a different branches, and make sure to purge anyone you cannot trust to preserve the status quo, above all else.

      This also means small unit leadership and tactics are antithetical to the purpose of their military.

      To be clear, I’m not talking about Arab militant groups or militias, and this is definitely not a function of race. It’s function of the types of political systems you currently find in much of, but certainly not all, of the Arab world.

    • slaacaa@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Amazing. From what I heard Russia is the same, I’m wondering how is China (probably similar). Along with the known numbers, it also makes me think if there is even a credible threat to the US military’s dominance - probably not.

      It’s also funny, how things like delegation of authority are very simple and proven concepts, yet it’s not used at a lot of places, even western companies. My squad only fights battles with ppts and clients, but I operate in the same way, often having weird interactions with other leaders, when I explain how I don’t hog power and information for myself unnecessarily.

    • Wugmeister@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 month ago

      That was a very interesting read. Now I’m super interested to read more papers comparing and contrasting military doctrine. Any ideas where to start?

  • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 month ago

    I once read at the start of WW2 Germany’s military was decentralized and USSR’s was centralized. As the war progressed, that flipped. Certainly not the only reason why either side saw successes or failures but I thought it was interesting.

  • Jumi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    1 month ago

    Also digging up a whole area with artillery and bombs after a stray bullet came from somewhere over there makes a coordinated defence difficult at least.

  • essell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “The pinicle of military deployment approaches the formless. For if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it, nor the wise make plans against it.” - Sun Tzu

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yeah, we’re talking about the army that rolls out chain stores in warzones as SOP. Apparently it’s pretty haphazard from he inside too, but nobody else can remotely pull that off.

        • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          I don’t know about gift shops, but definitely fast food and probably clothes too.

          Yep, there’s a guy buying shoes in one of the Wikipedia article’s pictures. Appliances and electronics too. Anything a soldier could reasonably want to buy, although apparently they have their own brand for auto sales, as opposed to a chain.

          Navy SEALs eating government-supplied but non-free Big Macs as bullets whistle overhead is just the most aggressively American. I also get a kick out of soda fountains on submarines, although it makes total sense from an engineering perspective.

          So, what’s the MOS code for Hooters specialist?