Forums
Page
of 4

Leading elements and chain of command misconceptions?

31 replies
Posts:
2,686
Votes:
+1,078
Discharged (CNTO Alumni)
wrote:
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 fireteam (direct voice) and respond to FTL (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.


The whole point of the restructure was to remove the fireteams independence as an element and make people realise it is not an element. Either way the restructure was a good thing it is a shame people have not implemented it the way it was submitted and accepted during the meeting but it still was a step in the right direction. If we want to have 4 man teams all over the place then that is everyone's choice.
Posted Jan 12, 18
Posts:
2,229
Votes:
+654
Until three of us come to an agreement, any further discussion is pointless. We will reply here and unlock thread once decision is made.

There is obviously a confusion about what intentions of past changes were.
Posted Jan 12, 18 · Last edited Jan 12, 18
Like
x 1
Undo
Posts:
2,229
Votes:
+654

This and previous discussion in War Stories thread unnecessarily turned into heated because of miscommunication and overthinking. Decision made in February last year was to move all squad members into a single shacktac group and does not mention any changes in chain of command. Our community has been founded on the idea that we will not reinvent the wheel, and instead we will follow tactics, techniques and procedures from Arma 3 Tactical Guide (TTP).

Arma 3 Tactical guide is our reference for SOPs, any other manuals can be discussed as a critical comparison. As such we follow chain of command described in the chapter: The Company. Due to our lower player count, some numbers differ, however the principles are same. It is important to note that the TTP explains Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and is not explaining exceptions to those.

Without getting into semantics, we have our Platoon group subdivided in following hierarchical order: Platoon > Squad > Fireteam > Buddy team. Each team has a leader that takes orders from higher leader, and delegates those orders to group below. Exception is buddy team as there is no clear leader.
This in practice means that a higher leader will give out the order to the group below, and it is the responsibility of immediate lower leader to ensure that order is followed according to the above commander's intent. The purpose of each leader is to delegate given orders in accordance to his own knowledge of present situation.
This does not mean that when eg. an PltCo gives out the order, an FTL goes and executes it; FTL waits for SL to give out his order. In previous example this is the reason why you wait for the SL to give out his order, which will be more detailed and might differ a bit from PltCo’s.

Exceptions are rare, and there might be some situations where eg. SL will go ahead and direct each individual player to a specific position. In normal situations this is undesirable for multiple reasons, eg.: FTL will have better knowledge of individual’s capabilities (because of his current ammo, experience, attitude, etc.), SL is wasting precious time finding a position and then leading individuals to it, FTL has better view of immediate surroundings and therefore knows best positions, etc.

Considering the rarity of exceptions we really shouldn’t overthink them. It is when exceptions to the SOPs become more frequent should we worry and raise issues.

Principle we can read out from the TTP is: Delegate orders to your direct subordinate element leaders (individual FT members in case of FTL) and allow them to adapt to those orders as they see fit; intervene if you see deviations from your intent.

For further information and to refresh our memories, I strongly recommend reading chapters “The Company” and “Leadership” from the TTP.

Posted Jan 14, 18 · Last edited Jan 15, 18
Like
x 6
Undo
Posts:
1,639
Votes:
+1,088
Discharged (CNTO Alumni)
Now I'm confused. :)

Since "buddy teams" are part of the hierarchy, who should FTL delegate the task to if a buddy team has no clear leader? Should it simply be the "more senior" member?

That causes some further confusion, as, directly from TTP3, "The Company":

  1. Fireteam Leader ("FTL") - Senior team member; Leads the first buddy team, consisting of himself and the rifleman.
  2. Automatic Rifleman ("AR") - Second in command of the team; Leads the second buddy team, consisting of himself and the assistant automatic rifleman.
  3. Assistant Automatic Rifleman ("AAR") - Third in command of the team; Follows and supports the automatic rifleman as his combat buddy.

It seems we use the AAR the wrong way around then? Because if not, then the LAT Rifleman is on the same seniority level as AAR (if I understood it correctly) and there would be confusion who should lead the buddy team.

Which I guess is a similar problem as MMG/MAT/Mortar/etc. teams have, from Attachments & Crew-Served Weapons:
  • MMG Team Organization & Responsibilities - Gunner: Senior member of the team ; Assistant Gunner: Second in command of the team
  • MAT Team Organization & Responsibilities - Gunner: Senior member of the team ; Assistant Gunner: Junior member of the team
  • ...

There seems to be no "team leader", like we have, and the gunner (not assistant) is senior. TTP3 seems to define "Weapons Squad Leader" instead, who, from what I can understand, leads all the "leader-less" crew-served weapon teams and commands them across some distance.
Posted Jan 14, 18
Like
x 1
Undo
Posts:
2,229
Votes:
+654
I'm pretty sure if you read the TTP3 you'll understand the purpose of the "buddy team" and how they are exempt from the hierarchy in our missions. I'm also sure that everyone understands the implied hierarchy in our weapon teams from the sheer fact of who is leader of shacktac group in our missions. Do not over analyze the obvious.
Posted Jan 14, 18 · Last edited Jan 14, 18
Posts:
276
Votes:
+168
Ammo bearers, AARs and Vehicle gunners are 2iC of their groups.

Afaik, buddy teams don't have a 'leader' per se, because they are already under orders of the FTL
Posted Jan 14, 18
Like
x 1
Undo
Posts:
2,229
Votes:
+654
Yes that is correct.
Posted Jan 14, 18
Posts:
102
Votes:
+67
Good rule of the thumb to why the ammo bearer or the assistant is the 2iC is that you generally want your heavy hitter (gunner) be dealing damage or suppressing the enemy instead of twiddling with the radio with his map open. This is a good thing to consider when figuring out succession after having leaders and maybe even 2iCs go down. Who are the heavy hitters you want to keep doing their jobs and who's concentration can you sacrifice to handle the leading. Of course there are many other things to also consider at this point.
Posted Jan 15, 18
Like
x 1
Undo
Posts:
2,229
Votes:
+654
wrote:
why the ammo bearer or the assistant is the 2iC is that you generally want your heavy hitter (gunner) be dealing damage or suppressing the enemy instead of twiddling with the radio with his map open.

That is also correct.

That particular part may differ a bit from the book, but is easily picked up from the context of our in-game settings, equipment distribution and shacktac group distribution.
Posted Jan 15, 18 · Last edited Jan 15, 18
Posts:
1,340
Votes:
+616
Discharged (CNTO Alumni)
wrote:
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.

Think this was the point of the argument. And in this regard Dachi is 100% right. Dyslexcy will tell you guys the same, he was trained by US Army. You can skip the chain of command if the situation mandates, naturally informing the "skipped commanders" about the decision. Subelements exist for myriad of reasons, only one of them being ease of management (command). That still doesn't mean skipping levels is banned from the army. Fireteam leaders make commanding squad easier, and at no point did Dachi say we should treat squad as atomic unit and disband fireteams. There are several examples in US army where platoon commander can create and command a subelement he created just for one special purpose. For example, leader's reconnaissance is conducted by patrol commander (usually Plt Ldr in Platoon sized patrols) where he handpicks several subordinate element leaders AND some of their men to come with him well forward of ORP to conduct the final recon. In other special cases, platoon sergeant is very often a de-facto leader of supporting element during ambushes and raids etc. Bottom line, rank is rank.

To close the matter, I asked Dslyexci:

m0veyv5l.png
Posted Jan 15, 18 · Last edited Jan 15, 18
Like
x 2
Undo
Page
of 4
Login
Upcoming Events
Apr 02 '19
20:00
Apr 05 '19
20:00
Apr 12 '19
20:00
Apr 16 '19
20:00
Apr 19 '19
20:00
Apr 23 '19
20:00
NoticeNotices