4 ms·

I'm familiar with the industrial advantages...I'd had assumed that intellectual/engineering man hours would be easier to come by, but perhaps that was also limi

by caycep 4y ago

I'm familiar with the industrial advantages...I'd had assumed that intellectual/engineering man hours would be easier to come by, but perhaps that was also limited in scale as well...or maybe it's a cultural thing that needs to get developed in a hypothetical Japanese equivalent of MIT/Harvard business school that did not yet exist...

newsclues 4y ago
Cultural issues would be the aspect other than industrial, that gave the Americans a huge advantage. Decentralized command and initiative of low level officers and soldiers was a big factor. Can't remember the episode but this has been discussed on the Jocko Podcast I think.
- paulmd 4y ago
  that is actually still an advantage of the US (or at least western armies) today... one of the reasons that Russian tank column in Ukraine just sat there for weeks is that the russians have a very top-down command structure where you don't do ANYTHING unless you're ordered. They lost communications, so there they sat. And when they actually sent generals up to get things cleaned up, the Ukranians picked them off with drones and snipers. The number of generals in the Russian command structure is also completely wack by western standards. The US has a very very large military and we have about 200 generals per service. The Russian army has about 1,500 generals in their army. So the "you don't do anything unless the general tells you" makes sense in that context - they have a lot of generals to match, their command structure is just much more top-down. (tangent, but hopefully interesting!)
  - newsclues 4y ago
    I respect the Russian style of pushing leaders towards the front lines. Russia doesn’t have an NCO rank system so they lack low level leadership at the tactical level. So they have more high level of leadership and need them closer to combat. Centralized command with poor communications infrastructure in a war zone with advanced electronic warfare, gives you good reasons for why the Russian military is struggling.
    - sbierwagen 4y ago
      >I respect the Russian style of pushing leaders towards the front lines. Observationally, it hasn't been great for officer lifespans.
      - newsclues 4y ago
        But can we observe the effect of the leadership on a tactical or operational level? Soldiers die, why shouldn't generals?
        sbierwagen 4y ago
        On a grand strategy level, it's been a disaster, since Russia started a war of conquest (bad) far short of the absolute minimum 2:1 manpower advantage required. (very bad) On a theater strategy level, it's been a disaster, as generals operated independently in opening many separate thrusts, without force concentration, and were defeated in detail. On a doctrine level it's been a disaster, as the Russians apparently forgot what combined arms were, with the observed loss of hundreds of armored vehicles to airstrikes, (because RU air force didn't establish air supremacy) accurate artillery, (because RU ranged fires haven't been able to suppress dispersed enemy artillery) and ATGMs. (because RU infantry failed to screen armor against enemy infantry) On a tactical level, morale has been zero, as RU conscripts abandon equipment, shoot up their vehicles to avoid being sent to the front, and run over general officers after failed attacks. So. General staff at the front sounds nice, but does not appear to be a substitute for winning.
        newsclues 4y ago
        You don't have an example where the generals fought from the rear and won? So if they weren't there it would be a greater disaster.
        jiggawatts 4y ago
        I’m going to use the phrase “Not a substitute for success.” from now on when debating the merits of pointless paperwork and bureaucracy while disregarding the essential technical work required to achieve the business goals.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    Another reason for the centralized command structure is politics: If you have an autocracy (of some kind) and a class system, then people are compelled to serve the elite. Those people can't be trusted to make decisions; in Ukraine, some are deciding to surrender their equipment and retreat. If you have a political system founded on political equality and self-determination, then it turns out people work together much better, loyalty is not an issue, and you can trust those people to be motivated and independent thinkers. Amazingly, with all the visible success of the latter system, some in the US now push for the former.
  - rurp 4y ago
    > (tangent, but hopefully interesting!) Very interesting! I don't have much to add but wanted to drop a note and let you know that your posts in this thread have been fascinating to read.

by caycep 4y ago

newsclues 4y ago

Cultural issues would be the aspect other than industrial, that gave the Americans a huge advantage. Decentralized command and initiative of low level officers and soldiers was a big factor. Can't remember the episode but this has been discussed on the Jocko Podcast I think.

paulmd 4y ago
that is actually still an advantage of the US (or at least western armies) today... one of the reasons that Russian tank column in Ukraine just sat there for weeks is that the russians have a very top-down command structure where you don't do ANYTHING unless you're ordered. They lost communications, so there they sat. And when they actually sent generals up to get things cleaned up, the Ukranians picked them off with drones and snipers. The number of generals in the Russian command structure is also completely wack by western standards. The US has a very very large military and we have about 200 generals per service. The Russian army has about 1,500 generals in their army. So the "you don't do anything unless the general tells you" makes sense in that context - they have a lot of generals to match, their command structure is just much more top-down. (tangent, but hopefully interesting!)
- newsclues 4y ago
  I respect the Russian style of pushing leaders towards the front lines. Russia doesn’t have an NCO rank system so they lack low level leadership at the tactical level. So they have more high level of leadership and need them closer to combat. Centralized command with poor communications infrastructure in a war zone with advanced electronic warfare, gives you good reasons for why the Russian military is struggling.
  - sbierwagen 4y ago
    >I respect the Russian style of pushing leaders towards the front lines. Observationally, it hasn't been great for officer lifespans.
    - newsclues 4y ago
      But can we observe the effect of the leadership on a tactical or operational level? Soldiers die, why shouldn't generals?
      - sbierwagen 4y ago
        On a grand strategy level, it's been a disaster, since Russia started a war of conquest (bad) far short of the absolute minimum 2:1 manpower advantage required. (very bad) On a theater strategy level, it's been a disaster, as generals operated independently in opening many separate thrusts, without force concentration, and were defeated in detail. On a doctrine level it's been a disaster, as the Russians apparently forgot what combined arms were, with the observed loss of hundreds of armored vehicles to airstrikes, (because RU air force didn't establish air supremacy) accurate artillery, (because RU ranged fires haven't been able to suppress dispersed enemy artillery) and ATGMs. (because RU infantry failed to screen armor against enemy infantry) On a tactical level, morale has been zero, as RU conscripts abandon equipment, shoot up their vehicles to avoid being sent to the front, and run over general officers after failed attacks. So. General staff at the front sounds nice, but does not appear to be a substitute for winning.
        newsclues 4y ago
        You don't have an example where the generals fought from the rear and won? So if they weren't there it would be a greater disaster.
        jiggawatts 4y ago
        I’m going to use the phrase “Not a substitute for success.” from now on when debating the merits of pointless paperwork and bureaucracy while disregarding the essential technical work required to achieve the business goals.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Another reason for the centralized command structure is politics: If you have an autocracy (of some kind) and a class system, then people are compelled to serve the elite. Those people can't be trusted to make decisions; in Ukraine, some are deciding to surrender their equipment and retreat. If you have a political system founded on political equality and self-determination, then it turns out people work together much better, loyalty is not an issue, and you can trust those people to be motivated and independent thinkers. Amazingly, with all the visible success of the latter system, some in the US now push for the former.
- rurp 4y ago
  > (tangent, but hopefully interesting!) Very interesting! I don't have much to add but wanted to drop a note and let you know that your posts in this thread have been fascinating to read.