4 ms·

>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.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > But can we observe the effect of the leadership on a tactical or operational level? It's apparently (there are other factors) a major contributor to their tactical and operational problems, because centralized command and control vs. distributed initiative around a central plan makes high level commanders single points of failure, and they are experiencing lots of failures, losing more than twice as many generals so far in Ukraine than the USSR lost in a decade in Afghanistan, as well as large numbers of other senior officers. > Soldiers die, why shouldn't generals? The operational problem isn't “generals sometimes die”, it's that the military organization is paralyzed without centralized response, which would be a problem even if generals weren't getting killed. But pushing senior commanders forward and in more exposed positions to mitigate that problem is exacerbating, rather than mitigating, it when instead of shortening the command response cycles it lengthens it because the commanders are getting killed.

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.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> But can we observe the effect of the leadership on a tactical or operational level? It's apparently (there are other factors) a major contributor to their tactical and operational problems, because centralized command and control vs. distributed initiative around a central plan makes high level commanders single points of failure, and they are experiencing lots of failures, losing more than twice as many generals so far in Ukraine than the USSR lost in a decade in Afghanistan, as well as large numbers of other senior officers. > Soldiers die, why shouldn't generals? The operational problem isn't “generals sometimes die”, it's that the military organization is paralyzed without centralized response, which would be a problem even if generals weren't getting killed. But pushing senior commanders forward and in more exposed positions to mitigate that problem is exacerbating, rather than mitigating, it when instead of shortening the command response cycles it lengthens it because the commanders are getting killed.