Leading elements and chain of command misconceptions?

Arma Lounge
1

So I’ve seen that argument in last thread in war stories about leading where Dachi and Berenton got into a peaceful argument but war stories is not really the place for that so I made this thread. I’m just gonna pick it up from there so for the context go on last war stories thread.

I have to side with Berenton on this one. SL has the authority to command each and every soldier within their squad (a.k.a micromanagement) but this should be avoided at all costs. There is a chain of command that you have to follow. About 95% of the time SL is there to give orders to FTL. Let’s use that example with 1 element moving and 1 element covering. Platoon gives a general order to do something, SL creates a plan in their head and tells FTLs: alpha 1 get a position to cover alpha 2 as they cross. At this point it’s FTL’s job to say: alpha 1 on me, we’re going to move there, get a position and cover alpha 2. FT members are to wait for FTL to say something like "we’re doing this now". Order might be more specific like "I want you to go to this exact location and cover alpha 2" but then again FTL says when the team moves and when they get to the place he decides(or not) where to put his soldiers so they are the most effective.

If you want to break down fireteams to do some partial micromanagement you should say "alpha 1 I need 2 of your guys to watch my SW and I also need 2 guys from alpha 2 to watch my SE", the FTL then says "you and you, go and do what SL says" and those 4 guys are supposedly under full SL command until told to go back to their teams.

If you don’t do it more or less how it’s described above then it becomes chaotic. The statement that FTL is there keep an eye on their team is ridiculous Let’s go back to the example, SL says "alpha 1, cover alpha 2 as they cross" and alpha 1 just start moving as soon as they hear it and they don’t get any formation going, not planning any route, just going as they think they should go. FTL at this point feels like he has 3 dogs on a leash with a guy blowing his dog whistle so the animals come towards him.

So to sum it up, PLT: gives more or less general orders following the plan from briefing or a modified one(since original plans almost never work out in 100%)
SL: Creates a plan of movement and tells fireteams what to do(again, can be a general order or more specified)
FTL: follows orders and micromanages his fireteam members and if orders are not specified enough he creates movement plan for his team

Micromanaging 9 people is very bad, giving out orders to people that are supposedly under management of FTL is bad(usually), FTL is not a grenadier that keeps an eye on 3 other people, FTL does micromanagement of his 3 people.

2

Just one side note from me; there was a brief moment I used to play as FTL right after we made the squad restructure (when FTLs became more like riflemen and less like leaders), before we regressed back to the idea of FTL being a full blown team leader (that we used to have with 6-man fireteams and that we essentially have now with 4-man ones).

This was because the FTL role allowed me to be a much more "hands on" leader, without having to pause to look at the map to mark targets, without having to think much about movement and coordination with other elements, etc. … I could just shoot and range targets for my guys and order them around when they couldn’t do it on their own. This is my idea of an FTL.

Then somebody started promoting "initiative" and more cooperation between fireteams, which lead to FTLs planning more and moving more on their own (often with SLs approval because the movement made sense) and generally being more autonomous. This made sense as they had the fresh front line info, together with SL being generally in the back to not get killed. And it IMHO brought us back to the original 6-man-style FT leadership of fairly abstract squad leading.

Is it a good thing? I don’t know, I don’t play FTLs anymore. I’ve heard other people like having more authority as FTLs, though.

3

As someone who has been squad leading quite often recently, I find that both micromanagement and semi-autonomous fireteams have their uses. Some situations call for more micromanagement while others call for moved by an FTL.
For example if I want to go do something as a squad lead I can just ask a random rifleman to help me without asking an entire fireteam to come, however when clearing a town a fireteam can be moving within a given sector quite independent from me.
But that’s my take

4

[quote user_id=“16434735” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/16434735/avatar/medium.1655480570.png” name=“Tropical”]So I’ve seen that argument in last thread in war stories about leading where Dachi and Berenton got into a peaceful argument but war stories is not really the place for that so I made this thread. I’m just gonna pick it up from there so for the context go on last war stories thread.

I have to side with Berenton on this one. SL has the authority to command each and every soldier within their squad (a.k.a micromanagement) but this should be avoided at all costs. There is a chain of command that you have to follow. About 95% of the time SL is there to give orders to FTL. Let’s use that example with 1 element moving and 1 element covering. Platoon gives a general order to do something, SL creates a plan in their head and tells FTLs: alpha 1 get a position to cover alpha 2 as they cross. At this point it’s FTL’s job to say: alpha 1 on me, we’re going to move there, get a position and cover alpha 2. FT members are to wait for FTL to say something like "we’re doing this now". Order might be more specific like "I want you to go to this exact location and cover alpha 2" but then again FTL says when the team moves and when they get to the place he decides(or not) where to put his soldiers so they are the most effective.

If you want to break down fireteams to do some partial micromanagement you should say "alpha 1 I need 2 of your guys to watch my SW and I also need 2 guys from alpha 2 to watch my SE", the FTL then says "you and you, go and do what SL says" and those 4 guys are supposedly under full SL command until told to go back to their teams.

If you don’t do it more or less how it’s described above then it becomes chaotic. The statement that FTL is there keep an eye on their team is ridiculous Let’s go back to the example, SL says "alpha 1, cover alpha 2 as they cross" and alpha 1 just start moving as soon as they hear it and they don’t get any formation going, not planning any route, just going as they think they should go. FTL at this point feels like he has 3 dogs on a leash with a guy blowing his dog whistle so the animals come towards him.

So to sum it up, PLT: gives more or less general orders following the plan from briefing or a modified one(since original plans almost never work out in 100%)
SL: Creates a plan of movement and tells fireteams what to do(again, can be a general order or more specified)
FTL: follows orders and micromanages his fireteam members and if orders are not specified enough he creates movement plan for his team

Micromanaging 9 people is very bad, giving out orders to people that are supposedly under management of FTL is bad(usually), FTL is not a grenadier that keeps an eye on 3 other people, FTL does micromanagement of his 3 people.[/quote]

I think you will find tropical this whole post duplicates every thing I wrote in wars stories thread where I specifically say that the SL can micromanage if needed but this should be avoided and FTL’s used to delegate tasks. The argument we was having is that Berenton said the SL has no authority to order a FT member to do a task where I was saying of course he can they are his men and he just needs to do it the way you have said above informing him so all are in the loop.

5

I have illustrated the issue below, basically there are people either in your chain of command i.e. under your command or those outside your chain of command (CoC).

Here is how my version of CoC should look like.

Here is Berentons.

Here is a simple example of mine, You as SL want to grab two guys from A1 the AR buddy team for example and you want them to cut off a crossroads, you inform your squad that you want this to happen over the radio, you could also if you wanted to delegate the task to the FTL this means telling him to get it done either way in both examples it is still the FTL’s job to make it happen.

Now if I want to order B1 to do something as ASL then they are outside my CoC so I have to go through BSL first I can not order them to do anything.

What Bereton was saying is that as ASL, A1 members are not in my CoC so I have to go through the A1 FTL to give them order this is what I disagreed with. I think they are in the SL’s CoC and I should be able to give them orders if required.

Regards,
Dachi

6

[quote user_id=“13633351” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/13633351/avatar/medium.1434890353.jpeg” name=“Freghar”]
Then somebody started promoting "initiative" and more cooperation between fireteams, which lead to FTLs planning more and moving more on their own (often with SLs approval because the movement made sense) and generally being more autonomous. This made sense as they had the fresh front line info, together with SL being generally in the back to not get killed. And it IMHO brought us back to the original 6-man-style FT leadership of fairly abstract squad leading.

Is it a good thing? I don’t know, I don’t play FTLs anymore. I’ve heard other people like having more authority as FTLs, though.[/quote]

[justify]Cooperation between fireteams is great but FTLs planning shouldn’t be a thing. It takes their attention away from the many things they must pay attention to. That’s the job of SL. The more time an FTL spends on the map the less he is informed where his guys/girls are, how the actual terrain looks, etc. In a quiet moment, FTLs can plan together with SL, but they shouldn’t use the SL just as a man to put his signature under their plan. On the point of initiative: This really depends on the situation. SL and with that PL put the FT on this very position for a reason, that the FTL might not know. If however the FTL sees a great opportunity, then i can ask SL and he will either approve if it fits in the bigger plan or deny if not.[/justify]

7

Exactly right Flo.

8

I am inclined to agree that anyone in the CoC has authority to micromanage people below them as much as they please. If he wanted, PLT could meticulously place every single soldier in the platoon, but that would be totally pointless, because that’s what SL and FTL are for. However, when the shit hits the fan, FTL and SL have the authority to say "Nope, bollocks to this", in order to preserve the lives of themselves and their subordinates; the fewer people you have under your command, the more immediately you can act and react, which makes you better suited to making snap decisions in the heat of battle. The FTL reacts the quickest, then passes info up the chain.

And to reiterate my point in the war stories thread, the platoon leader gives orders on the map, the squad leader gives orders through binoculars, and the FTL gives orders by pointing.

9

Tropical, you don’t "side" with anyone. Doctrine was adopted by Dachi "back then". That means it’s how he says - the problem is that we don’t have that written anywhere. It would be good to have a CNTO field manual but let’s be honest, who will have the time to write it?

A lot of stuff is doctrine specific and depends on bigger picture. For example:

In US Army fireteam is self reliant element. Field manual FM 3-21.8 - The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad says:

1-72. The Infantry fire team is designed to fight as a team and is the fighting element within the Infantry platoon. Infantry platoons and squads succeed or fail based on the actions of their fire teams.

1-73. The Infantry fire team is designed as a self-contained team. The automatic rifleman
(AR) provides an internal base of fire with the ability to deliver sustained suppressive small arms fire on
area targets. The rifleman provides accurate lethal direct fire for point targets. The grenadier provides high
explosive (HE) indirect fires for both point and area targets. A team leader (TL) who provides C2 through
leadership by example (“Do as I do”) leads this team.

Then it goes on about different roles in a team and I’ll take the part about team leader:

1-77. The team leader leads his team members by personal example. He has authority over his subordinates
and overall responsibility for their actions. Centralized authority enables the TL to maintain troop discipline
and unity and to act decisively. Under the fluid conditions of close combat, the team leader must
accomplish assigned missions using initiative without needing constant guidance from above.

1-78. The team leader’s position on the battlefield requires immediacy and accuracy in all of his actions.
He is a fighting leader who leads his team by example. The team leader is responsible for all his team does
or fails to do. He is responsible for the care of his team’s men, weapons, and equipment. During operations,
the team leader—

  • Is the SME on all of the team’s weapons and duty positions and all squad battle drills.
  • Leads his team in fire and movement.
  • Controls the movement of his team and its rate and distribution of fire.
  • Employs digital C2 systems available to the squad and platoon.
  • Ensures security of his team’s sector.
  • Assists the squad leader as required.
  • Is prepared to assume the duties of the squad leader and platoon sergeant.
  • Enforces field discipline and PMM.
  • Determines his team’s combat load and manages its available classes of supply as required.
  • Understands the mission two levels up (squad and platoon)

1-79. When maneuvering the team, the team fights using one of three techniques:
(1) Individual movement techniques (IMT, the lowest level of movement).
(2) Buddy team fire and movement.
(3) Fire team fire and movement (maneuver).

1-80. Determining a suitable technique is based on the effectiveness of the enemy’s fire and available
cover and concealment. The more effective the enemy’s fire, the lower the level of movement. Because the
team leader leads his team, he is able to make this assessment firsthand. Other leaders must be sensitive to
the team leader’s decision on movement.

But in the Russian army it’s a completely different ball game.

10

Completely different ball game here in the British Army too mate we have Fire Teams but they don’t do anything on there own they are literally only there to enable the section to perform Fire and Manoeuvre.

11

Completely different ball game here in the British Army too mate we have Fire Teams but they don’t do anything on there own they are literally only there to enable the section to perform Fire and Manoeuvre.[/quote]

Yes, that’s why I listed US Army example where FT have more independence (I’d argue how much more) while I think most other armies follow the Russian/German/British model where inner elements are there only for ease of maneuvering.

Bottom line, fireteam exists to help squad leader control the squad. That still doesn’t mean they have become an independent element.

If we read carefully the above excerpt from US manual, that fireteam independence is expressed in few very low level tasks:

  • choosing the movement technique UNDER FIRE - this is a natural, the leader under fire usually knows best shit in which he is in
  • micromanages fireteam soldiers assigning sectors of fire, distribution of fire and targets

Still in every army a general can come to a grunt and override any subordinate order. He doesn’t do it because it’s bad leadership. On low level like squad, squad leader very often splits teams however he sees fit. Following WW2 US Army infantry training video about Wehrmacht - a gruppe leader is briefing his squad (not fireteams). That gruppe has both MG team (mg34/42) and riflemen team (Kar98) - they even made teams completely asymmetrical to emphasis the usage of teams! That concept is still present in Russian and French Army today (maybe others too). That asymmetrical concept implies the dependency of subelements on command of element commander.

12

British training video (very informative too):

has 3 parts, just follow along.

13

Avoid micro-management. Leaders need to let leaders lead - it sounds blindingly obvious, but it has to be said. Orders should be given that allow a subordinate to get them done in the way that they deem to be best. Lower-level leaders require tactical flexibility to get their jobs done - dictating exactly how an element should move and rigidly enforcing it can get people killed. It is better to give guidelines - that you need them to move to a certain place, and that they should try to follow waypoints you set for them - and allow them to adapt to it as they see fit. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but they are just that - exceptions, not the rule. Micro-management stifles tactical flexibility and lower-level leadership and should be avoided.

~Andrew "Dslyecxi’ Gluck, Tactical Guide to Arma 3 (TTP3).

I think this covers it pretty well.

14

[quote user_id=“1171274” avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/1171274/avatar/medium.1413819128.jpeg” name=“Abuk”]Avoid micro-management. Leaders need to let leaders lead - it sounds blindingly obvious, but it has to be said. Orders should be given that allow a subordinate to get them done in the way that they deem to be best. Lower-level leaders require tactical flexibility to get their jobs done - dictating exactly how an element should move and rigidly enforcing it can get people killed. It is better to give guidelines - that you need them to move to a certain place, and that they should try to follow waypoints you set for them - and allow them to adapt to it as they see fit. Obviously there are exceptions to this, but they are just that - exceptions, not the rule. Micro-management stifles tactical flexibility and lower-level leadership and should be avoided.

~Andrew "Dslyecxi’ Gluck, Tactical Guide to Arma 3 (TTP3).

I think this covers it pretty well.[/quote]

Well, there are multiple types of "micro management" - it’s customary for guides, lectures and presentations about human leadership to warn about the more common "do exactly as I say because I don’t trust you to make decisions for yourself", which I think Dslyecxi refers to. Or the related "parental instinct" where a superior tends to judge and adjust every action of the subordinate to be "better" in their view, resulting in the subordinate never taking responsibility.

Some other flavours of "micro management" include (generally positively marketed) transitive-style leadership where, translating to our language, both SL and FTL are in "command" of a FT, with SL overruling the FTL (with the FTL being informed in the process, adjusting their duties).

I think we were concerned about the uniformity of squad leadership back when the system was introduced, at least I had my worries about people preferences in the amount of responsibility and initiative they want to take, varied across the community, resulting in conflicting combinations of SLs that tend to be more "hands on" and FTLs that prefer to be more standalone, but there were no solutions to that. Maybe there are no solutions and it’s just something we have to live with.

History / time periods are a very important context, when I was researching the standardization of OPORDs across nations, I noticed that some modern armies seem to prefer small (~4-man) standalone teams with specialized equipment, rather than 8-10-man squads … IIRC.
When we were discussing this last time, I think Berenton also brought up the idea of asymmetric squads from his experience and I still personally think that would be worth pursuing in CNTO (as it would reinforce the idea of a squad being a single element, not a union of two identical fireteams), but that sadly doesn’t solve the "SL vs FTL" responsibility question.

15

1637×883 202 KB

Edit:
With added layer of general movement and ST HUD

1637×887 229 KB

What’s there not to understand?

16

We have asymmetric sections in the UK and I think you may be right about it helping keep the squad together.

17

Ok, maybe I wasn’t understood well. Both ways are "correct" depending on which army doctrine one follows. But our reorganization was done months (year?) ago with intent of making squad a tighter unit, then we should act like that. And that is our doctrine. Unless SSGTs and Training team want to change it, then we’ll be informed. Until then, we act like we’re British section (squad). If we adopt US concept, we’ll play like US Army. But we can’t keep bumping on same question over and over again.

British section doesn’t assume micromanagement. They did subdivide the section in 2 FTs. But not because they want A1 and A2 to act like independent ninjas (neither US Army does that!) but rather to ease up movement.

In the end, neither a squad/section is totally independent of anything. One of the leading US military thinkers Robert R. Leonhard stated that independence to decide things comes with simple question - "do you have the combined arms capability to complete the operation". If FT or SL need to ask for air/mortar/arty support, they are mere cogs in the bigger picture.

Another thing - US doctrine has a concept of release point - a line after which a unit is released of tight command and the commander of the unit moving out becomes commander of that unit.

18

Some of you seem to misinterpreter a tiny bit. I’m not saying that FT should be independent ninja team that spits on SL orders. I want to underscore the fact that micromanaging as SL is just horrible most of the times and if the moment comes you don’t drag out someone of their FT but you tell their FTL that you want them to do something you want so FTL can choose the person and give him a green light to go and do it. Of course there are exceptions but as said above - there are only exceptions.

I remember when Shakan was once ASL and I was one of the FTLs and I’d say we were pretty much micromanaged but the situation forced it on him(us) and it worked out well. After all I was listening to the orders on radio and them passing them down to my guys and telling them when to move and how to move(according to orders).

I can also remember when I was the SL and I only gave out general orders like "take this place" and I left the rest to FTs and there was some great teamwork there. You might say that in this case FTs acted like small ninja teams(but there was a lot of cooperation between alpha 1 and alpha 2 so IDK about that).

All of this works and I guess it’s just down to who’s playing the leading roles to be honest. The message here is to not ignore chain of command. FTL has his guys and if SL desires to use one of them - no problem, but you have to tell FTL that you want it done and it will be done. Don’t bypass anyone.

19

This is the confusion [user avatar=“https://assets-cloud.enjin.com/users/1171274/avatar/small.1413819128.jpeg” name=“Abuk”]1171274[/user]

People think the CoC on the right means micromanagement or the FTL’s are of not needed but this is completely false.

20

That is not correct. Chain of command includes FTL. We follow shack tac guide. St Hud change was cosmetic and to ease the movement not to change chain of command. Restructure did not remove FTL as element leaders. They are still managing the fireteams (direct voice) and respond to SL (radio). Fireteam are to maintain visibility within squad and work together. This does not remove their independence as element. Fireteam leaders can make decisions which are within squad leads intent.

If that’s so much an issue we can go back and have fireteams separate on shack tac Hud.