6 ms·

Aboard a US nuclear submarine. What is missing from this article is the context of how much the boat impacts the culture. A Russian or British submarine will

Aboard a US nuclear submarine. What is missing from this article is the context of how much the boat impacts the culture. A Russian or British submarine will have a different training system not just because they have a different military culture but also because the boat is physically different. Communications pathways, be them electronic or physical, dictate how decisions are made. A Russian submariner probably won't make a move without orders not because he doesn't know what to do but because there might not be a direct electronic report back at the command as to what is happening. Doing things without orders on a Russian boat can result in command loosing awareness of a situation. A US submariner can have better confidence that his actions will be automatically reported back to command via various sensors and monitoring systems. This article focuses on the fact that the US submarine experience special because everyone is expected to have a working knowledge of every system. That is different than the rest of the US military where people remain very specialized. But mandating generalist knowledge is actually a norm in other countries. The Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US soldiers: Whereas each member of a british or canadian gun crew is expected to understand and perform all the jobs associated with firing a gun, an American is likely to respond "I pull the rope." Such hyper-specialization just doesn't work in a submarine because people are not able to physically move around. The environment, the submarine, dictates the culture.

kodah 5y ago
The US military actually has various perspectives on this statement by branch: > But mandating generalist knowledge is actually a norm in other countries. The Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US soldiers: Whereas each member of a british or canadian gun crew is expected to understand and perform all the jobs associated with firing a gun, an American is likely to respond "I pull the rope." For instance, the Marines encourage a lot of cross-training. First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom if you have, say, a Corporal that's formally trained in electronics, but also knows their way around MEPDIS gear, HVAC, guns, and troop movement. The reason you'll hear the most touted though: "What if someone dies; who can take their place?" It's like a right of passage in a way. Green Berets, Navy SWIC, and SEAL/S work in under similar lines of thought from what I know. This all aligns to their mission though: seizing forward positions. The line company Army, however, focuses on specialization. The reasoning is pretty simple: their mandate is to occupy. imo, the way people organize around knowledge is based on the challenges they perceive in the mission ahead. I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software.
- pixiemaster 5y ago
  > I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software. while substantially different in nature (defined by mission), both marines and army have the same principle: it’s your job to learn the job of your superior (because if they die, you need to be able to take over) - a principle that applies at every rank. I think that applies quite well to SWE.
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    Too bad then when someone who doesn't have any underlings but whose job is crucial dies.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      If a single person is the sole bearer of incredibly critical information it's a failure of the organization to insure itself against risk and possibly a failure of the individual to properly express the amount of specialized knowledge. I think tech companies are pretty good about this though, since the whole meme around "bus factor" is well understood and broadly discussed.
- sandworm101 5y ago
  >> First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom Operational costs yes, but not training costs. Make that general knowledge a minimum standard and you have to train the people in all manner of things before they are useful. The marines, from my outside perspective, are still very specialized in terms of basic riflemen training but are open to cross-training once someone is at an operational unit. Each marine doesn't need a sniper qual from day one, but the corps will certainly help them get it later. The navy submariner is different because of the number of mandatory quals before you are considered usable on a boat.
  - kodah 5y ago
    The Marines do have a baseline of knowledge you have to obtain. There's actually two phases to it: 1. Bootcamp. You're learning all the basics, from history to troop movement, and basic weapons qualification. 2. Infantry Training Battalion. A primer on top of bootcamp for navigation, shooting, troop movement, and weapons qualification. (These are required of every Marine in order to join "The Fleet") 3. Primary/Secondary school. This is your a-billet training (your primary job). Where most of the other training occurs is once you're in the fleet, which occurs in your first unit after Step 3. There's a moderately high attrition baseline to get to the fleet, which signifies a minimally deployable Marine.
golergka 5y ago
> A Russian submariner probably won't make a move without orders not because he doesn't know what to do but because there might not be a direct electronic report back at the command as to what is happening. I don't know that much about submarines, but culture of following orders and not showing any initiative is so hardly entrenched in Russian military that it might be the other way around: culture influencing boat design.
- dekervin 5y ago
  I am taking advantage of this comment to ask a general question hoping to read some insights into it. On different occasions after doing some casual war history reading, I ended up with the diffuse belief that the ability to delegate initiative to low ranking soldiers was one of the key attributes of the winning side ( for example during different israelo-arab wars ). Then I stumbled upon a military evaluation of how the german army performed during WWII. It spent time stressing the point that german officers were constantly encouraged to show initiative and independant thinking, more so than other western european armies. Supposedly, it was a cultural trait dating back from the prussian army. It shattered my cliché view of the german army as first and foremost an organization built on discipline. So here is my question: Is is possible there is a tendency/bias to simply view ourselves as more independant and any adversary we face as more "drone" like ? ( The same way ancient kingdoms would simply label their opponents as savages ? )
  - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
    I think the Germans did have more independent thinking. It helped them. They frequently out-fought larger enemy groups, and the independence helped. They eventually got buried in numbers (Russia) and buried in materiel (US). The US also eventually got around to allowing the same independent thinking, and the German independent thinking got eroded as Hitler meddled more and more in the war.
    - dekervin 5y ago
      Interesting ! If I read your answer correctly, there was a time when German Army had more independent thinking than US Army. Is it common knowledge in military circles ? Did you always knew it or was there a time or a reason your worldview changed on that topic ? I am asking to compare with my "epiphany" experience.
lotaezenwa 5y ago
Your comment reminds me of Conway's Law [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law

kodah 5y ago

The US military actually has various perspectives on this statement by branch: > But mandating generalist knowledge is actually a norm in other countries. The Brits/Canadians tell a joke about US soldiers: Whereas each member of a british or canadian gun crew is expected to understand and perform all the jobs associated with firing a gun, an American is likely to respond "I pull the rope." For instance, the Marines encourage a lot of cross-training. First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom if you have, say, a Corporal that's formally trained in electronics, but also knows their way around MEPDIS gear, HVAC, guns, and troop movement. The reason you'll hear the most touted though: "What if someone dies; who can take their place?" It's like a right of passage in a way. Green Berets, Navy SWIC, and SEAL/S work in under similar lines of thought from what I know. This all aligns to their mission though: seizing forward positions. The line company Army, however, focuses on specialization. The reasoning is pretty simple: their mandate is to occupy. imo, the way people organize around knowledge is based on the challenges they perceive in the mission ahead. I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software.

pixiemaster 5y ago
> I've yet to figure out how to replicate this in software. while substantially different in nature (defined by mission), both marines and army have the same principle: it’s your job to learn the job of your superior (because if they die, you need to be able to take over) - a principle that applies at every rank. I think that applies quite well to SWE.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  Too bad then when someone who doesn't have any underlings but whose job is crucial dies.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    If a single person is the sole bearer of incredibly critical information it's a failure of the organization to insure itself against risk and possibly a failure of the individual to properly express the amount of specialized knowledge. I think tech companies are pretty good about this though, since the whole meme around "bus factor" is well understood and broadly discussed.
sandworm101 5y ago
>> First and foremost, it shoots operational cost to the bottom Operational costs yes, but not training costs. Make that general knowledge a minimum standard and you have to train the people in all manner of things before they are useful. The marines, from my outside perspective, are still very specialized in terms of basic riflemen training but are open to cross-training once someone is at an operational unit. Each marine doesn't need a sniper qual from day one, but the corps will certainly help them get it later. The navy submariner is different because of the number of mandatory quals before you are considered usable on a boat.
- kodah 5y ago
  The Marines do have a baseline of knowledge you have to obtain. There's actually two phases to it: 1. Bootcamp. You're learning all the basics, from history to troop movement, and basic weapons qualification. 2. Infantry Training Battalion. A primer on top of bootcamp for navigation, shooting, troop movement, and weapons qualification. (These are required of every Marine in order to join "The Fleet") 3. Primary/Secondary school. This is your a-billet training (your primary job). Where most of the other training occurs is once you're in the fleet, which occurs in your first unit after Step 3. There's a moderately high attrition baseline to get to the fleet, which signifies a minimally deployable Marine.

golergka 5y ago

> A Russian submariner probably won't make a move without orders not because he doesn't know what to do but because there might not be a direct electronic report back at the command as to what is happening. I don't know that much about submarines, but culture of following orders and not showing any initiative is so hardly entrenched in Russian military that it might be the other way around: culture influencing boat design.

dekervin 5y ago
I am taking advantage of this comment to ask a general question hoping to read some insights into it. On different occasions after doing some casual war history reading, I ended up with the diffuse belief that the ability to delegate initiative to low ranking soldiers was one of the key attributes of the winning side ( for example during different israelo-arab wars ). Then I stumbled upon a military evaluation of how the german army performed during WWII. It spent time stressing the point that german officers were constantly encouraged to show initiative and independant thinking, more so than other western european armies. Supposedly, it was a cultural trait dating back from the prussian army. It shattered my cliché view of the german army as first and foremost an organization built on discipline. So here is my question: Is is possible there is a tendency/bias to simply view ourselves as more independant and any adversary we face as more "drone" like ? ( The same way ancient kingdoms would simply label their opponents as savages ? )
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  I think the Germans did have more independent thinking. It helped them. They frequently out-fought larger enemy groups, and the independence helped. They eventually got buried in numbers (Russia) and buried in materiel (US). The US also eventually got around to allowing the same independent thinking, and the German independent thinking got eroded as Hitler meddled more and more in the war.
  - dekervin 5y ago
    Interesting ! If I read your answer correctly, there was a time when German Army had more independent thinking than US Army. Is it common knowledge in military circles ? Did you always knew it or was there a time or a reason your worldview changed on that topic ? I am asking to compare with my "epiphany" experience.

lotaezenwa 5y ago

Your comment reminds me of Conway's Law [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law