Trust commanders: what is required for the army to work normally

What should a good commander be? This painful question is raised by the military analyst Konstantin Mashovets - and he answers himself: the good commander knows the situation exactly because he is trusting the subordinates. Formalism in assessing the real state of troops sooner or later ends with a tragedy. Moreover, even when your "beauty" report is a state "on now" has fully satisfied the older command.

The formal figure in the summary table of data or tactical signs on the map in a large number of cases is not quite a picture, which is imagined by commanders \ chiefs that are relevant to making appropriate decisions. The most terrible in the battalion-brigade unit of combat administration is to "break away from the ground". What is called "not to have a real situation. " This applies to both the state of their own troops and the enemy data.

And then the chain reaction begins… Based on formalized data that little or completely not correspond to the real state of things, erroneous management decisions are made, and appropriate combat orders are made and given to the same, and in general, losses that were quite possible to avoid . This does not mean that the combrig or combat should crawl daily on the observation points on the front line or lace on "supporters" (although it will not hurt from time to time).

He must establish such a system of command (management), as well as intelligence and observation of the enemy (which, incidentally, all guidance guidelines and manuals determine how a continuous process) that would allow him at any time to know for sure, without distortions. The situation in the entire lane, the area (on the site) of actions subordinate to it. Yes, I understand, it is difficult, it is necessary to work with people constantly - to explain, to explain.

And if you also have a whole bunch of subordinates who "know how to command" or have a "excellent point of view" on the process of performing a combat mission, then all of which becomes even more burdensome. But the point is that the above -mentioned system of command is based (or better to say, begins) with trust. If your subordinates trust you, then the reports will be real, not "painted".

In another way, as experience proves, the fear of punishment for "false reports" can achieve the desired effect (realism) only for a short period of time, and then-everything in no way . . . I emphasize again. The most durable and firm "support" to increase the level of realism in collecting data on the state of your own troops and assessing the state of the enemy's troops - trust you on the part of your subordinates. And every commander \ the chief decides how to achieve it.