Please excuse the source material, but to my knowledge all modern armies follow this template to a certain extent.

In fact, it’s nothing new and we can’t even say that the Americans invented this organisation. The Romans, some 2000 years ago, already divided their huge armies in smaller units so that they had flexibility both in practice and theory – that is at every level of the hierarchy, while the higher levels represent theory (strategy) and the lower levels practice (execution). This was maybe not novel to some armies they fought, but some of the armies they fought were not structured this way… and were utterly defeated.

Clearly this structure has left its mark and perhaps it is this union of theory and practice that makes it the most effective army structure available today still.

Please note that this graphic only shows the size of each chunk, and not their composition. For example we know nothing of how many tanks or artillery cannons are in a squad (and squads themselves are stereotyped, meaning you have many different squad “templates” all equipped differently). The size of these units may also vary depending on the assignment.

Note also that the United States has a fifth star general, and it is always the President. The President is the chief of armies and their orders supersede any given by the four-star general (who is a career soldier, not like the President who is a politician and elected into office from potentially nothing). This is particular to the United States, as most other countries name or elect their chief of armies independently of the President.

It’s interesting to note, and a topic to delve into later, that usually soldiers will obey their generals more than any politicians. Time and time again (Harman notes some examples here, though I don’t remember in which chapter exactly), generals have outright refused orders from politicians without any consequences, because they have the soldiers on their side. That is perhaps also why the military has this capacity to coup the government and install their generals in politics, as we’ve seen lately for example in Myanmar.

In any case, I’m posting this info here so that we have some frame of reference when discussing battalions, divisions, platoons, etc.

Muad'Dibber
admin
312d

Somewhat related, but there’s also a fire team, which is no more than 4 people, (2 fireteams make up a squad), which is a good number for the smallest unit for any org. Any more than 7 people, then people are generally less likely to speak up, or feel close to the other members.

The Zhukov Academy for Military Theory
!zhukovacademy

    Welcome to the Zhukov Academy, comrade. Here we post material of all kinds related to military theory of any kind. If your soviet ever starts a revolution, or if you declare a protracted people’s war, then this is a place you’ll want in your arsenal – preferably before the revolution starts.

    All sorts of works are allowed as long as they come from a reputable source, meaning people who have a career in the military or have led a revolution. Otherwise you are free to also ask questions about military theory freely.

    When submitting a work, please link to a freely-accessible copy – so either a pdf or html pages, so that everyone can read it. Although not required, please also include a text post explaining why you recommend this book or why it’s important. It will encourage people to read it and help them know what to expect.

    We also allow works from the enemy (imperialists), as it is important to understand how their military works today. For example, an article about how the USA gets its ass kicked in simulations is absolutely welcome here. Just as long as it has to do with military theory.

    For more general topics on the military, please visit !military@lemmygrad.ml.

    • 0 users online
    • 2 users / day
    • 2 users / week
    • 3 users / month
    • 5 users / 6 months
    • 15 subscribers
    • 10 Posts
    • 7 Comments
    • Modlog