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. Theyâre 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, âEveryone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.â
tl;dr: The American military is trained to function assuming units know how they function best and everything will go to shit. Itâs designed to maximize individual strengths and be chaotic af. American units donât know what theyâre doing until theyâre doing it.
An old NCO once told me that âthe first casualty of war is the plan.â I donât know where he got that from, but Iâve always liked that quote.
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
âKein Operationsplan reicht mit einiger Sicherheit ĂŒber das erste Zusammentreffen mit der feindlichen Hauptmacht hinaus.â
It was Eisenhower maybe that said âplans are worthless, but planning is invaluable.â
And yet, itâs 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 itâs a Canadian soldier with the MOS of âdunno, boats maybe, and your equipment is definitely filled with moldâ, 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. Donât know about the rest. @BombOmOm@lemmy.world seems like they might have been in the US military also.
Ah, isnât that the key of it, though? A highly specialized force knows not just what theyâre assigned to do, but what theyâre supposed to do for the overall operation, making adaptation both possible and likely to not result in catastrophic failure.
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 canât even see) and it all goes to hell in a hand-basket.
Thereâs actually a very good reason why Russia operates like that - mutinies. If you give junior officers authority, in a political system like Russiaâs where the leadershipâs legitimacy is purely based on power and self-interest, they might decide theyâd rather be the ones in charge. This was perfectly demonstrated when they gave a military unit autonomy, and that resulted in the Wagner mutiny.
