C2 and TELIC - Death By Battle Procedure

Darth_Doctrinus said:
Rabid,

I'm with you - brain the size of an obvious - wouldn't follow the chap anywhere near an operational theatre. Like so many others in this field, lots of ideas, great concepts - but feck all understanding of the way we actually operate, which I would argue you need to 'make it happen'.

Look how much dead wood currently floats about in LWC - supposedly the focus of Warfighting in the LAND environment!
The author in question is an all round good bloke IMHO. If there is any unwillingness to follow him, perhaps it stems from his willingness to experiment/try somehting new, which doesn't quite sit with our conservative view of 'how things should be done'.

The fact remains, he is one of the few guys I have ever heard of/known who has tried to do something differently and has been prepared to take criticsim in order to do it. You may not trust him near an operational theatre, but as Commander of a permanent trials/experimentation/OPFOR unit?
 
CS - in the right environment, he would be a thoroughly top chap to work for. How long before we see his name across lots of papers being produced by RUSI etc - and how long before he's taken on as a consultant by MoD to deal with HQ structures and modernisation? :D
 
Not long, depends how soon he can tell the Army to poke it!
 
VirtualSoapBox said:
There are 2 types of Officer, Clever and Thick and 2 types of workers Hard and Lazy.

A clever hard working officer is a benefit to whatever organisation he is in. You should count yourself lucky to have one of this rare breed.

A clever but lazy officer has moment of brilliance but on the whole underachieves. Your fortunes are mixed if you have one of these slightly more common breed.

A thick and lazy officer is of no benefit what so ever you're are unfortunate to have one of these but fortunately they are quite rare and he can safely be ignored.

A thick hard working officer is a curse to whatever organisation he belong to as he can't help but churn out reams and reams of totally pointless and useless work that swallows the time of everyone it comes into contact with. Sadly this type of officer is all too common.
Hmm the Army has changed a bit.

I thought the evaluations of these chaps were..

A clever hard working officer is a benefit to whatever organisation he is in. You should count yourself lucky to have one of this rare breed.

A clever but lazy officer has moment of brilliance - will always find the easiest way to do somehting - put him on the staff.

A thick and lazy officer is a common type in the army and its procedures and customs are based around this assumption. Their idleness means that they are unlikely to do much harm.

A thick hard working officer is a curse to whatever organisation he belong to as he can't help but churn out reams and reams of totally pointless and useless work that swallows the time of everyone it comes into contact with. Sadly this type of officer is all too common

Nowadays my guess is that type two has gone to work for McKinsey and type three has been kicked out. Now its the stars and the make worlks. Ahhh Parkinson's law in action!
 
Possibly moving away from personalities and back to HQ sizes, battle procedure times et al, surely the hardest issue is generating the capability to run the current battle competently whilst planning for future operations - and the fact that a lean mean brigade team just won't have the horsepower for this. The staff g5-3 'plan-refine-execute- model seems to be sound, but needs to be resourced. Couple this with the fact that Divs in WW2 were decidedly tactical units of employment, whereas today they are essentially practitioners of the Operational level of war - with all the attendant comand responsibilities and requirement for interagency liaison and governmental linkage - and things get complicated.
Is the kernal of the problem simply one of balanceing speed with soundness? The solution to demand a cultural shift away from presentation and back toward tactical soundness? Oooh! I feel another BAR article coming on! Or perhaps a long bath...and a hearty tug!
 

chicken_jim

Old-Salt
I wonder if part of the problem is our desire to double hat HQs.

Both the RAF and the NAVY have deployable Componant HQs that are not tied to command of troops.

LAND on the other hand alwys takes the highest level HQ deployed (1 (UK) Div in the case of Op TELIC) and double hats it as the LCC. Therefore it is always torn two ways between the demands of the tactical comd of it's Bdes and the Operational command as the LCC with all the up/ down and sideways liason required. This eats up much of the Staff's horsepower and the end result is we don't do either job properly. This is evident on the paper deing discussed in this thread and in the fact there was no viable post war-fighting plans.

We need to establish a seperate LCC to enable the Tactical HQs to fight the tactical battle.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MrBane Medals 3
RumRationReject The NAAFI Bar 84
P Medals 4

Latest Threads

Top