What's new

Battlefield Management

Hey Gary,
Thanks for the tag.
The article was interesting but I wish you could go deeper into this subject, like explaining the tactical operations center and tell us how things are done there.
The air borne battle management is very different from the battle management on land/battle management on the move (I guess!). Have i got it right?


Good read. Where are your sources?
original articles dont need sources. :angel:
 
Well,this makes some sense to me,that is major or LTC at hats-off,while 2LC at hats-on approach,as it will be systematic approach,minus circumstances? I mean,in general sense?

Regards

lol, it's hands on and hands off, not hat on and off :)

And no, not necessarily so, for a 2 LT, hands off approach are still important. Because when you break open a larger unit, you cannot possible control all the element at once, as you are only one person. Some time you still need to farm out your responsibility so your unit can be better suit small unit tactics.

And on the other hand, Hand On approach are also important for a Field Commander, especially when the immediate mission objective is highly essential, say leading a team personally to ensure the objective of this part of your battlefield succeed. Also when time came, it is a good motivation tool for a Field Commander lead their troop personally, Julius Caeser wear a read cloak to ensure his men saw him fighting in the front line. Patton done the same.

Hey Gary,
Thanks for the tag.
The article was interesting but I wish you could go deeper into this subject, like explaining the tactical operations center and tell us how things are done there.
The air borne battle management is very different from the battle management on land/battle management on the move (I guess!). Have i got it right?

original articles dont need sources. :angel:

TOC is one of those place you have for C2 (Command and Control)

What it basically is 2 parts, a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities) and a Head Quarter (HQ).

What it does is Information pass thru the SCIF and Process by the command element in the HQ, and then the command structure are pass thru the SCIF to go out to the subordinate unit.

Depending on how many unit that TOC command, a TOC could be a whole building with all kind of sub-commands, or it could be just a small office if the operation need a slim support structure, usually happen with Special Operation.

Airborne Battle Management is the same as any battle management (Sea, Air, land) but with different focus, the instructional phase is the same, but the analyst phase is different. As you focus mostly on coordinate Air-Land Asset than majority ground base asset, but the command structure and instruction structure are the same.

It used to not, but the American have adapted a Joint Military Command to simplify the level and classes since 2000s

Can you give me the name of the documents?

Well, mostly what I was taught during OCS and my actual command experience, some Army Regulation are in the mix, to start, you can look at AR-600-8 for Military Human Resource Management, which updated in 2014 (may be a bit different than I said) and Field Manual 24-2 for Tactical Military Spectrum Management.

But in all, I do not have any reference to the article, they are mostly (70-80%) my own experience
 
Nice write up on a very critical aspect of war/battle.

One very important component of the whole battle management system is a multi-layered very secure, reliable and robust communication system to provide timely updates from individual "units" to the command for a better and bigger picture in a very hostile environment subject to various types of interference, eavesdropping and jamming.



Battlefield Management

Most of you would have heard of Battle Management System, it's what looks like a computer mounted in the centre console of a Humvee looks a lot like a Television.

Well, that's that, but that console is just a small part of what War Science called "Battlefield Management" skill that utilize by commander to effectively command troop and achieve their objective.

And in this article, I hope to explain to you the basic concept of Battlefield Management.

What is Battlefield Management?

View attachment 235279

Just like in a company, an officer lead troop much like a manager manage his/her workers. While military officer command a battle, it means that the officer in field are responsible for managing the battle itself, as well as all available resources that officer get to accomplish his or her objective.

Battlefield Management is a subset studies of Battle Command (Abbr. BC) which basically is a mix of Business Management and Battlefield Command Structure.

There are 3 fields in Battlefield Management

1.) Strategic Asset Management
2.) Tactical Asset Management
3.) Unit Management

For example, the TV look alike I mention at the beginning of the article is an example for unit management.

Objective of Battlefield Management.

The goal, or objective for battlefield management is to provide the commander tools to accomplish his/her objective in an effective manner. Each commander in different level (Company, Field, Staff and General) have a different subset and a different requirement he or she have to learn to manage a battle.

It should be understand that the objective of battlefield management is not just focus on the outcome of a single battle. What good does it do if you win this battle but losing 90% of your force in the process?

Battlefield Management is there to prevent situation just like that.

Battlefield Management provided the commander on field or in control a step in the decision making, better the battlefield being managed, the better the decision making process, hence a better battle outcome.

However, it should be noted that Battlefield Management is not just solely engage in the real time or strategic decision making process, it also focus on communication, intelligence, unit coherence and situational awareness.

Hand-on and Hand-off Management Style

Contrary to common belief, all 3 stages utilise both Hand-on and Hand-off style management, problem with command structure is that no commander in a single system can control all variable at the same time, but also on the other hand, on hand management provide commander first hand view of the process of battle.
While most unit level management can be manhandled by the commander itself, but with Hand on management, commander would risk "Tunnel Vision" on the commands. Where commander would generally focus on the immediate picture of the battle, but cannot see the whole picture of the battlefield.

Hand-off style would usually feed the commander real time picture of the overall battle, but the disadvantage is that hand-off mean the overall command have to assert certain power to the subordinate and expect them to perform their task at time, which could be a flaw as the overall command can lose overall tactical control and it would take time to reassert tactical control and affect the whole battlefield progress.

A good battlefield manage at any level should consider both system as to how a commander manage a battle. At some element, hand-on control must be assert, for example, core objective, but secondary objective or other objective that does not deemed important enough should be delegated by the subordinate.

Common Ground

Although there are 3 different systems on Battlefield Management, there are common ground on each different system, the common denominator for all battlefield management are the picture, it does not matter if they are big or small, you need to get the picture, and to have it, you need to have a C4ISTAR system

C4ISTAR stands for Command, Control, Communication, Computing, Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition, and Reconnaissance

C4ISTAR is the way for any commander needed to construct a full picture of the battlefield. It's important for the commander to understand the battlefield as a whole before any decision can be made. And a good C4ISTAR system would mean the commander would process more knowledge on the battlefield, real time information across the battlefield and the constant update, on the other hand, a bad C4ISTAR system or practices would result in the commander making judgment based on incomplete information.

Unit Management

View attachment 235278

In brief, Unit Management is to micromanage each unit operate under the commander command within your AO.

While unit management focus on the inter-unit communication, the real time co-relation between the unit under your command, to satisfy this, the need for a command and reporting system are important. To do that, commander are help with the Battlefield Management System.

View attachment 235277

Battlefield Management System such as FBCB2 are used to report and locate both friends and enemy unit to increase the commander's situational awareness so to give the commander a well present information for decision making process.

However, the tool to make the right decision does not just rest on modern equipment, it also depend on the military human resource management skill.

Being a whole different subject altogether. I am not going to go deep into the skill with Military Human Resource Management (AR-600-8) but I will try to briefly define the core concept of MHRM is that you treat unit in your command as a commodity and what you, as a commander have to do is to try to find out a way you use those commodity (Soldier) to exchange for advantages in order to complete your mission.

It may sound cold as hell, but as a commander, you have to look at each of your soldier an asset, when you objectify your soldier, you can put them into a calculation in order for you to complete your mission. Decision like how much this high ground worth to your men, and should we complete the mission economically if we do not take this enemy bunker? You basically use your soldier to "buy" advantage in order for you to complete your mission.

Tactical Asset Management

Now, look at a bigger picture, some time there are some element that is out of your control that is important for fighting your battle. Those usually are supporting element such as naval or air support.

While usually those asset were not controlled by the on site commander, they would cross path with the operation and probably be allocated to the commander disposal.

Now, much like the commercial side, the Tactical Asset Management are divided into 2 different category, they are discretionary and systematic.

While discretionary management provided the commander manage the tactical asset based on the battlefield order, the general situation of battlefield. Manage the battlefield tactical asset by preference and prioritise the battlefield asset according to their strength and number. Oppose to the battlefield need.

Systematic management on the other hand focus on the inequality of the equation, basically to predict what kind of tactical asset is lacking and prioritize the asset according to the battlefield need, oppose to the battlefield order.

Strategic Asset Management

View attachment 235280

The final chapter of battlefield management would be strategic asset management. As the name suggested, it is an overall strategic management, also known as the big picture

The goal for a commander is to provide an initial plan for all asset class, setting the overall objective and adjust all the asset from their deviation to maintain the overall objective. In term of military command, there are an old saying that "Plans never survive the first contact with the enemy" by balancing unit in an overall strategic level, the commander have to be able to react to real time change to the battlefield and provide a useful arrangement to bring the objective back in line.

Strategic Asset Management focus on changes according to time, which may develop due to several factors (Risks, Force balance, Intelligence to Unforeseeable Circumstance) The overall objective, basically is to set a goal and stick by it, as usual, this is a lot easier to say than actually do it.

For example, if an commander have an overall command of 10 infantry division and 5 armoured division, the commander may set an arbitrary goal say to drive the enemy out of a single phase line.

The commander can tackle the approach by either reducing risk, by diverging the unit, but he or she can also focus on time efficiency factor by concentrating the whole lot into smashing into the enemy. (Less time = Less risk)

And the commander's duty will then be try to balance the overall factor of the battlefield to achieve his/her goal (in this case, drive the enemy out of the phase line)

That's all the basic for battlefield management, I hope you enjoy reading it, as usual, I will try to answer any question you may have. thank for your time and see you later
 
Hand-on basically means you control every thing by yourselves and hand-off means you "outsource" your command ability to your subordinate

Say for a 2LT, which is an Platoon commander, now, I have 3 Squads, I can assert direct control to all 3, tell them where to move, what to do and how to do it yourselves, that's hand-on management. Or I can simply control the squad leader and tell him what I want him to do, and he do it his way, that's hands-off

Now, for a puny 2LT, you won't make much of a different, as a platoon is a small sized unit (45 men) and it not really anything of a matter if you control them yourselves or farm it out to your subordinate, but say if you have field control (like a Major or LTC), you control a battalion then the responsible is gonna be different, and hand-on and hand-off approach would have their own advantage and disadvantage at that point



Well, this part of the command structure usually happen in normal work place :) HR, everyone have it

Great, a very informative writing indeed. But can we call Hands off and Hands on as Micro and Macro management, just a thought.
 
Thank you for sharing this informative post.

Things are changing in the battle field. Being a bit of old school I am always for a ' Hands off' approach. Junior commanders must know what the Commander has in mind, his larger battle plan along with its timelines.

What I have read presupposes assured uninterrupted both way real time communication. This is a luxury once the shooting war starts..

Troops & commanders will function in spurts of information black outs. This can be self imposed or due to enemy action - Jamming or hostile fire.

Hence my preference for the Hands off approach.

Lastly, Commanders too must only get info they need to know. Commanders at all levels need to resist fighting the junior commanders battle which I may add is the easier thing to do.
 
lol, it's hands on and hands off, not hat on and off :)

And no, not necessarily so, for a 2 LT, hands off approach are still important. Because when you break open a larger unit, you cannot possible control all the element at once, as you are only one person. Some time you still need to farm out your responsibility so your unit can be better suit small unit tactics.

And on the other hand, Hand On approach are also important for a Field Commander, especially when the immediate mission objective is highly essential, say leading a team personally to ensure the objective of this part of your battlefield succeed. Also when time came, it is a good motivation tool for a Field Commander lead their troop personally, Julius Caeser wear a read cloak to ensure his men saw him fighting in the front line. Patton done the same.



TOC is one of those place you have for C2 (Command and Control)

What it basically is 2 parts, a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facilities) and a Head Quarter (HQ).

What it does is Information pass thru the SCIF and Process by the command element in the HQ, and then the command structure are pass thru the SCIF to go out to the subordinate unit.

Depending on how many unit that TOC command, a TOC could be a whole building with all kind of sub-commands, or it could be just a small office if the operation need a slim support structure, usually happen with Special Operation.

Airborne Battle Management is the same as any battle management (Sea, Air, land) but with different focus, the instructional phase is the same, but the analyst phase is different. As you focus mostly on coordinate Air-Land Asset than majority ground base asset, but the command structure and instruction structure are the same.

It used to not, but the American have adapted a Joint Military Command to simplify the level and classes since 2000s



Well, mostly what I was taught during OCS and my actual command experience, some Army Regulation are in the mix, to start, you can look at AR-600-8 for Military Human Resource Management, which updated in 2014 (may be a bit different than I said) and Field Manual 24-2 for Tactical Military Spectrum Management.

But in all, I do not have any reference to the article, they are mostly (70-80%) my own experience

Sorry man, when your hands are working with so many things at time than you do mistype ,especially from tablet's ridiculous autocorrect!
Regards
 
Nice write up on a very critical aspect of war/battle.

One very important component of the whole battle management system is a multi-layered very secure, reliable and robust communication system to provide timely updates from individual "units" to the command for a better and bigger picture in a very hostile environment subject to various types of interference, eavesdropping and jamming.

Well, true, but still what if someone stole the whole HUMVEE??

The question is, between a complicate, secure system and a simple and easy to use system, the latter usually wins out as most of the decision is real time anyway, so secure or not is not really that important.

That said it is a good point

Great, a very informative writing indeed. But can we call Hands off and Hands on as Micro and Macro management, just a thought.

To some degree, yes, but Macromanagement depend entirely the subordinate decision, while in hand off mode, you still need to follow up and set guide line to the people work under you, directly or indirectly.

Beside that point, they are interchangeable


Thank you for sharing this informative post.

Things are changing in the battle field. Being a bit of old school I am always for a ' Hands off' approach. Junior commanders must know what the Commander has in mind, his larger battle plan along with its timelines.

What I have read presupposes assured uninterrupted both way real time communication. This is a luxury once the shooting war starts..

Troops & commanders will function in spurts of information black outs. This can be self imposed or due to enemy action - Jamming or hostile fire.

Hence my preference for the Hands off approach.

Lastly, Commanders too must only get info they need to know. Commanders at all levels need to resist fighting the junior commanders battle which I may add is the easier thing to do.

Officially, both have their own merit, as I explained above, hand on make sure your objective are reached and hand off give out more dynamic to complete a mission.

Problem is, we are not living in a perfect world, and personally, I would choose the latter too but for a very different reason...


Sorry man, when your hands are working with so many things at time than you do mistype ,especially from tablet's ridiculous autocorrect!
Regards

lol autocorrect......

Everytime I said "hey" on my iPhone, it autocorrected to "gay" and that pissed off many people...

So, I feel you brother

And I just forgot I did not mention @AUSTERLITZ
 
My intention was not to debate the merits of complex vs. simple, they both have their own advantages and disadvantages and should be considered in deciding the final structure of the whole system. My use of word "Secure" was to refer to three distinct areas,
1 - Secure from SigIntel so that the enemy can't snooping in and tap in to the communication between various units or command levels and extract critical info.
2 - Secure from intrusive attacks to safeguard from false commands /messages being inserted in the communications to create chaos and confusion.
3 - Secure from jamming and interference with redundancy built in to the structure to ensure real-time communications between various units and command levels.

For example in my company we use three different methods for data communication, LOS radios, Optic fiber link, and lastly VSAT, if one channel goes down, our remote sites are still connected to servers through other alternate channels they all have their own advantages and disadvantages in terms of equipment cost, maintenance, service charges, date transfer rate, etc, but ultimately they all achieve the key objective of ensuring 24/7 connectivity. (not saying same channels would work for military application too).



Well, true, but still what if someone stole the whole HUMVEE??

The question is, between a complicate, secure system and a simple and easy to use system, the latter usually wins out as most of the decision is real time anyway, so secure or not is not really that important.

That said it is a good point
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom