Contact!

by Max Velocity

 CHANGED SITUATION: Has the situation changed since the mission was received or the estimate completed (constantly review your mission analysis)?

  o Nothing changed: No change, mission confirmed.

  o Minor change: Same mission, same plan.

  o Significant change: Same mission, amend plan.

  o Major change: Possible new mission and new plan. Refer to superior commander, or if not possible, act in support of his main effort, taking into account his intent.

  WARNING ORDER: This is not strictly a part of the MDMP but it is a part of battle procedure. You will issue as much relevant information as you can to allow battle procedure to start, amending and issuing further warning orders as required. The mnemonic for the principles of battle procedure is: CAKE

  Concurrent Activity

  Anticipation at all levels

  Knowledge of the grouping system

  Efficient drills

  The purpose of which is to ensure that your machine is ready to go once you are ready to issue specific mission orders. It should not be the first they are hearing of the plan!

  Course of Action Development: Develop at least two Courses of Action (COAs), three is better, but more than three is probably too many. In this step the staff Analyzes Relative Combat Power (friendly assets vs. the enemy’s assets), Generates Options, Arrays Initial Forces (where friendly forces are arrayed as well as the best information on the enemy is arrayed), Develop the Scheme of Maneuver, and prepare COA statements and sketches. The COA sketch is a one page (usually PowerPoint) diagram that shows a map of the plan with all the critical tasks listed along one side. COAs need to pass the suitability, feasibility, acceptability, distinguishability, and completeness tests. This means that the plans each need to be realistic given the assets, restraints, constraints, and assumptions listed in the previous step. The two to three COAs need to be distinct from each other, not just minor variations of the same plan.

  Course of Action Analysis: This step is known as war-gaming. The staff will have gathered all the information available, determined assets available and the assets the enemy has, identified facts and assumptions, and developed a couple of plans. Now the plan is put to the test in a table top exercise.

  There are rules to war-gaming. At all times, remain unbiased towards a COA; approach war-gaming as an honest assessment of the plans in order to determine their strengths and weakness. Next, list the advantages and disadvantages of each. Continually assess the COA feasibility, acceptability, and suitability. If, while war-gaming, it is determined a COA just won’t work, then stop war-gaming it. Next, avoid drawing premature conclusions and gathering facts to support such conclusions. Finally, compare the COAs in the next step, not during war-gaming. When war-gaming, focus on one COA at a time, from start to finish, without discussing how this COA has an advantage over the other. Finally, war game the COA from start to finish; go through friendly action, enemy reaction, friendly counteraction for each event (or enemy action, friendly action, enemy counter action if the enemy strikes first). One person is dedicated as the enemy side; they will fight to win for the enemy, which could even be representative of a natural disaster.

  Course of Action Comparison: Now is the time that the various COAs are compared to determine which one is the best option, and therefore which to go with. The actual comparison of the COAs is critical. Use any technique that facilitates reaching the best decision. Start by evaluating each COA from different perspectives, using the evaluation criteria that were already established. Now, compare the COAs to determine the one with the highest likelihood of success against the most likely enemy threat and the most dangerous enemy threat. This is done through a simple matrix with COAs listed across the top and the evaluation criteria listed down the side. The criteria can be weighted in order to give more strength to those criteria which are most important. After each COA is graded and weighted, they are totaled and the one with the lowest score wins (based on the best being listed a ‘1’, the second best as ‘2’ in each category). You now have your COA.

  Course of Action Approval: Within the military, this is a formalized brief to the commander by the staff detailing the results of the war-gaming process and their recommended COA. At the end of the briefing, the commander decides on a COA and then issues final planning guidance.

  Orders Production: Now that the COA has been approved, the staff gets to work finalizing the plan that will result in an order to subordinate units.

  Summary: The MDMP has a lot of utility; however its greatest utility outside of a staff planning room is a simplified version of the war-gaming process, the course of action development and comparison. The full MDMP is a resource and time consuming process that requires practice and training in the war-gaming. There is simpler tool that is known as the ‘Combat Estimate’ and will be covered next.

  The Combat Estimate

  The combat estimate, or simply estimate, is an excellent tool that utilizes the MDMP. It used to be called an ‘appreciation’ and this was changed to ‘combat estimate’. The estimate is a process very similar to the MDMP but it is more designed for use by an individual commander making decisions on the ground and without a large staff to war-game for him. You can still bring in others to help you but it is not such a complex process to complete.

  Combat estimates form part of leader training and are initially practiced very formally to ensure that the process is sound within the trainees mind. For a combat leader, practice of the estimate process will be trained from formal written through oral to dynamic estimates during live combat training and will result in an embedded decision making process in that individuals mind that at its basic level will enable sound decisions of the ‘go left, go right, or go up the middle type’.

  Estimates can be completed off a written scenario. They are then practiced during ‘TEWTS’, which are ‘Tactical Exercises without Troops’: where leaders will be looking at the ground over which they are expected to conduct the estimate, whether that is an attack, defense of other scenario. Estimates will then be completed dynamically during field training exercises, such as a platoon advance to contact. By the time this process of training is complete, the leader will have the estimate as a tool for written planning, or simply in his head when out on the ground and where decisions need to be made. Here is a version of the estimate:

  COMBAT ESTIMATE

  Mission: The tasks given to you and the unifying purpose, against which all factors are considered.

  STAGE 1 – MISSION ANALYSIS

  QUESTION

  CONSIDERATION

  1. INTENT (Why?)

  2 up, 1 up, my role

  2 Up: Superiors role in his commanders plan

  Desired end state? Where is his main effort?

  1 Up: Commanders intent? Concept of operations? How must my action directly support my Commanders intent?

  2. TASKS (What?)

  - Specified

  - Implied

  What tasks must I complete to fulfill my mission?

  What are my implied tasks?

  3. CONTRAINTS

  (What not?)

  (When?)

  What limitations are there on my freedom of action?

  Control measures? Time? Space? Resources? Rules of engagement? Assets? Timelines? Logistics?

  Political? Strategic? Legal? Law Enforcement? Martial Law?

  4. CHANGED SITUATION

  (Continuous process throughout operation)

  Has the situation changed since orders were received or the estimate completed?

  Nothing changed: no change, mission confirmed

  Minor change: same mission, same plan

  Significant Change: same mission, amend plan

  Major change: possible new mission and new plan. (Refer to superior commander, or if not possible, act in support of his main effort, taking into account his intent).

  5. CONFIRMATORY CHECK

  Clarification Up, if required

  ISSUE INITIAL WARNING ORDER

 
; STAGE 2 – EVALUATE FACTORS

  FACTOR

  DEDUCTIONS

  TASKS/ CONTRAINTS

  GROUND/ENEMY

  (Consider Ground and Enemy together – use Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB))

  * Note see below.

  GROUND / ENVIRONMENT

  Routes/Axes (Enemy and Own)

  Mobility Corridors (Enemy and Own)

  Dominating Ground

  Key Terrain/Vital Ground

  Killing Areas

  Objectives

  Going

  Obstacles

  Choke Points

  Visibility

  Distances

  Wind (NBC Considerations)

  What is deduced from this? Ask ‘So What?’

  What tasks or constraints fall out that need to be incorporated into the Courses of Action (COA)?

  ENEMY

  Center of Gravity

  Decisive Points

  Enemy Intentions

  Air/Helicopter Threat

  Known Dispositions and Organizations

  Weapons and Equipment

  NBC Capability/Likelihood of use

  Key Vulnerabilities

  Morale

  Strengths and Weaknesses

  Logistics and Supply situation

  What is deduced from this? Ask ‘So What?’

  Need for Reconnaissance?

  Likely Enemy Course of Action

  Can you counter it?

  What is the effect in you and what counter-action do you need to take?

  Worst Enemy Course of Action

  Can you counter it?

  Stay or Go?

  FRIENDLY FORCES

  Air & Flanking Forces

  Own Forces Capability

  - Organization and Equipment

  - Dispositions and Availability

  - Training

  - Readiness

  - Motivation

  - Strengths and Weaknesses

  Combat Service Support (CSS)

  - Demand

  - Current state of combat supplies

  Replenishment Requirements

  - Distance

  - Duration

  - Availability / Scarcity

  What is deduced from this? Ask ‘So What?’

  SURPRISE and SECURITY

  Deception: how can I deceive the enemy?

  Surprise: how can I seize and maintain the initiative?

  OPSEC (Operational Security): how can I prevent the enemy discovering my plan?

  Protection: how can I protect my own forces and plans?

  Security: Tactics techniques and procedures giveaway? Big picture security?

  What is deduced from this? Ask ‘So What?’

  TIME (identify constraints)

  Fixed Timings

  Enemy Timings

  Time required for tasks (e.g. orders, movement etc.)

  Additional time required due to degradation

  Earliest and latest time for H hour

  What is deduced from this? Ask ‘So What?’

  ‘H-Hour’ is the time that an attack or operation will begin.

  OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS

  e.g. Political, Strategic, Event Type, Law and Order, Martial Law, Rules of Engagement, Legal etc.

  What is deduced from this? Ask ‘So What?’

  SUMMARY OF POSSIBLE TASKS

  Essential Tasks? Optional Tasks?

  TASK

  COMBAT POWER REQUIRED

  DEDUCTIONS

  * Note: IPB (Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield) is a systematic process which requires the production of a series of graphic overlays depicting basic data on weather, terrain and enemy deployment; the latter may be based on no more than an assessment of his doctrine. It is also a dynamic process in that data can be added or adjusted at any time before or during combat. The integration of these graphs will show; possible enemy options, own information gaps and decision points.

  STAGE 3 - CONSIDER COURSES OF ACTION

  FORMULATION/CONSIDERATION OF COA

  COA

  ADVANTAGES

  DISADVANTAGES

  1

  2

  3

  STAGE 4 – COMMANDERS DECISON

  SELECTION OF COA

  WHO?

  WHY?

  WHAT?

  WHERE?

  WHEN?

  CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS

  Sub Units Involved

  COMMANDERS INTENT – including vision of the desired end state

  Outline of the intended operation including MAIN EFFORT

  UPDATE WARNING ORDER

  DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN AND ORDERS

  PLAN:

  1. Task Organization: who does what, roles

  2. Mission

  3. Execution: Concept of Operations:

  Intent: overall idea of what the commander is trying to achieve

  Scheme of Maneuver: Who, what, where, when

  Main Effort: most critical part of the execution, where commander will concentrate effort

  4. Sub-Unit Missions or Tasks: their role within the plan

  5. Coordinating Instructions: Times, locations etc.

  6. Service Support: logistics & supply

  7. Command & Signal: incl. position of commander during the operation

  REVIEW

  The above process for the combat estimate can be utilized for your decision making post-event. It may be that not all the factors for consideration are relevant at all times and others can be added. Remember that once you get to COA consideration you need to be brutally honest in comparing them and selecting the best plan. One of the biggest decision making mistakes is to ‘situate the estimate’ in advance and try and make the end product, the decision, fit with what you wanted going in to the process.

  When you have covered tactical operations as covered in the following chapters, on topics such as Defense and Offensive operations, you will find that the estimate fits very well into decision making for these operations. In addition, you can utilize the following principles to compare your COA to determine their validity and advantages/disadvantages:

  Principles of War

  Functions in Combat

  Selection and maintenance of the aim

  Maintenance of Morale

  Offensive Action

  Surprise

  Concentration of Force

  Economy of Effort

  Security

  Flexibility

  Cooperation

  Administration

  Command

  Firepower

  Maneuver

  Protection

  Intelligence & Information

  Combat Service Support

  Blog Post

  The Tactical Use of Terrain/Ground:

  I received the following question by email:

  "Would you discuss terrain analysis? How to use terrain to your advantage in the offense and defense. Thank you. I have just enough knowledge to get myself into trouble.”

  This is a somewhat large topic. One thing I will say straight up front is that these topics are covered in detail in [This Manual].

  I am going to concentrate on the offense. Mainly because I have covered defense, types of terrain and the principles of defense in detail in 'Contact' and although I have covered offense, there is more detail that can be gone into about use of ground in the assault, rather than just the mechanics of an assault. I have also covered use of terrain for navigation and movement, which is itself a separate topic. So for now, I will hone in on offense and use as a vehicle for the discussion either hasty or deliberate attacks (or raids) to go through a terrain analysis process.

  Straight up I am going to launch into one of the old faithful U.S. Army mnemonics. These are all well and good as an aide memoir but must be understood rather than trotted out as a standard answer (METT-TC anyone?) A standard approach that you may find useful is to use the mnemonic OCOKA:

  O – Observation and Fields of Fire

  C
– Cover and Concealment

  O - Obstacles

  K – Key Terrain

  A – Avenues of Approach

  If you are attacking, you will need to consider these from the point of view of the enemy position you are attacking i.e. what are the enemy's observation and fields of fire from their position....? How will I apply that to a covered approach?

  OK, after my foray into standard U.S. Army doctrine, moving swiftly on:

  When considering terrain, or as I prefer to say, ground, you must consider it in conjunction with the enemy. Thus you do not think about ground as its own thing, but as enemy/ground (enemy & ground). You will then relate that to your position. It is a spacial relation and application of fire problem that is up to you to solve. The position of the enemy on the ground, related to the position of friendly forces and how the lay of the land falls between the two will inform your decision making.

  I have put in a chapter on the 'Combat Estimate' in 'Contact': this is a planning tool that also acts as a 'mental trainer' for real situation when you don't have time to actually conduct a written estimate. It follows the process of going through factors such as enemy/ground and making decisions that will lead to potential 'courses of action' and finally a plan. Such a tool can be used in slower time when planning a deliberate attack/raid or off the cuff if engaged in a reaction to contact and hasty attack.