Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > On 1/14/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> What would you describe as the "objects" in a military scenario who >> state determines the next step? I'd have a similar questions in other >> scenarios (e.g. American Footbal coaching with its fixed plays called >> from the side lines). > > A battle plan is fabulous right up until the start of battle. Then it > must adapt to the current state of the battle -- the actual deployment > of enemy troops, the weapons in use, the weather, civilians, > casualities, etc. > > As Gervas said, the Army is not truly centralized. Officers in the
Well, that's partially true. Certainly in the case of special forces, they are almost entirely free to make their own decisions on the ground. Most other areas of the army, are still relatively centralized. In fact, they can get away with that most of the time where armies of previous generations couldn't. And that's because the modern army has vastly superior comms and the likes of real-time satellite image data which allows the modern military leader to get a clear overview of a very large battlefield. That's not to say there isn't delegation for individual military objectives as you state but it's not quite as loosely coupled as one might imagine. > field must constantly make their own decisions. They are goal-driven > rather than execution-driven. "Take that hill." "Secure that > building." "Destroy that bunker." > > Anne > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >
