Talk:Mission-type tactics

Mission tactics is a misnomer

Excellent article, generally. I would like to make one addition, though.

Semantically, mission tactics is a misnomer. It is not a tactic the way, say, encirclement or flanking is. It is more of a leadership philosophy. I think it is useful to make this distinction so I edited that.

Sensemaker

Agree with your observation. I think that the title is a valid transaltion of Auftragtaktik so there is some basis for the name. The name also is a plural perhaps suggesting a group of tactics or a doctrine. That all said i agree that it is perhaps an implementation of a philosophy which is perhaps not clearly the case with 'encirclement'. However, I guess a philosophy may lie behind those other 'tactics' but they just seem like 'common sense'. Like your changes. Facius 10:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Format

Any chance someone could tweak the text a little bit so it could be divided up into sections? Right now it flows continuously so that I couldn't find any logical places to break it up. --maru (talk) contribs 02:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

This should have a link from 'mission based tactics' as well, as that is another name for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.216.67.41 (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

Translation of main title

As you mention: Mission-Type Tactics is a misnomer. The original term 'AuftragsTaktik' is not translatable into English and attempting to use 'Taktik' as a basis is misleading, it is not related to the tactical level of command. The term, in German, is a complete expression in itself and translation is not possible except by means of 'Dynamic Equivalence' method, in other words expressing the original intention which was in the mind of the writer. Both the U.S. Forces and the British Army have made very serious efforts (since the early 1980's) to arrive at a usable equivalent term which could be taught in the Military Universities (U.S.A.) and the Military Academy (U.K.). The current expressions in English are: 'Directive Control' and 'Mission-Type Orders' (U.S.A.) and 'Mission Command' (U.K.). Further reference to the concept can be found in the wikipage 'Truppenfuhrung' (1933) which relates to the first German Field Manual to incorporate AuftragsTaktik and apply it down to the level of the individual soldier. I was Co-Author/Editor of the first complete English translation (Boulder Co. 2001). I propose to re-edit this page title and the associated text but, first, would like to hear from contributors.

I am very familiar with this subject so it is not just a question of a poorly informed person cutting out, or changing, areas of text on the basis of a private opinion. Would interested parties please let me know what they think. thanks. Bruce Condell bruce (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I wrote the original article. Why was this article renamed? If an article on "Mission-type tactics is something someone wants to write they should. BTW I read Bruce Condell's book and highly recommend it.

I propose reverting to the original name. CaptCarlsen (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Horatio Nelson

Horatio Nelson practiced Mission Tactics throughout his career, probably deserves a mention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.71 (talk) 11:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a citation for this? Especially since Horatio Nelson died 1805, and the first mentioned date is 1806.... --Gwern (contribs) 19:04 31 July 2008 (GMT)

Many biographers of Nelson have made this observation: Edgar Vincent analyses the spectacularly successful, and surprisingly modern, leadership strategy of Horatio Nelson.

It is startling to find that, in this technological age, The Nelson Touch is the first heading in the British Navy’s current bible, British Maritime Doctrine. It extols Nelson’s simple instructions, his belief in delegation, and the time and effort he spent in getting his captains to understand his intentions. What Nelson practised is now known as Mission Command, a concept that first surfaced in nineteenth-century Prussia (Auftragstaktik), was used in the German Army to distinguish between the role of Headquarters and the role of Army commander, and was eventually abandoned by Hitler in his disastrous personal direction of German armies.

From the New York Times: Nelson invented the modern system of mission command, based on consultation and coordination rather than hierarchical obedience, pioneering methods of management that are standard practice on Wall Street today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.29.71 (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"...given proper guidance and that they are trained so they can act independently." How can training teach people to act independently? Surely training tends to homogenise peoples' behaviour? Isn't Auftragstaktik an area on a spectrum of discretion more talked about than demonstrated? Keith-264 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

By the same logic, I suppose you've proven that it is impossible to educate people in anything like creative endeavours or philosophy or critical thinking... --Gwern (contribs) 12:44 5 August 2008 (GMT)

Try not to be a popinjay Gwern, there's a good chap.Keith-264 (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

factual error

"Napoleon fought a continual battle of manoeuvre or movement and throughout his career (at least until Spain) demonstrated his ability to defeat all comers by the greater flexibility of his formations and deployment." Boney himself has never been defeated in Spain.

I think that what you mean by this is that Bonapart was never personally defeated in Spain (the Peninsular War). This is correct because he never led the French forces in Spain but assigned command to his Marshals. However, the historical fact is that from the arrival of the British Expeditionary Forces in Portugal in 1808 up to the battle of Toulouse in 1814, the French forces never won one single (major) engagement against Wellington. The Peninsular War became a running sore that bled the French empire white, draining its manpower (french conscripts against professional british regulars) and draining its treasure (largely looted) and destroying its morale.Miletus (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The one and only, face to face, encounter between the Iron Duke and Europe's Great Thief took place at Waterloo, where Boney has been totally defeated by an Anglo-Dutch-Honoverian Anvil and a Prussian Hammer.--78.53.17.1 (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Levels of command

In general, Auftragstaktik applies to the Operational (Division) and Tactical (Battalion) levels of Planning and Command. I have made a small change to the text of the article to reflect this. Excellent article and well up to the standard of a staff college workpaper. A good description of the auftragstaktik concept can be found in the British Army Manual 'Field Service Regulations' (available for download at the Army Website)Miletus (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Auftragstaktik as the title of the article

I prupose that "Auftragstaktik" be the title of the article, instead of "Mission-type tactics". Since the current title isn't a correct transaltion of the german word we should, in this case, go with the original word. Can we do it? Yosy (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the correct translation?Sam 16:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't one. It's a very german word! The Etymology section of the article describes very-well a difficulty of a translation. And since the "Blitzkrieg" article is under its german name and not "Lightning War" I belive the same could be done to this article. Yosy (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg is a relatively famous word.It has become the synonym for the German tactics during ww2."Auftragstaktik" on the other hand is slightly less catchier. Sam 05:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Even so "Auftragstaktik" is catchier than "Mission-type tactics". Who do we go to solve this dispute? Yosy (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno.Hitler isn't giving me any appointments these days.Rommel is too busy rolling in his grave. Sam 15:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Auftragstakik was this articles original name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.185.185 (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah Auftragstaktik fits the article way better, and it's the correct term, it should be moved asap Norschweden (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mission-type tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070612045335/http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/SepOct02/SepOct02/widder.pdf to http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/SepOct02/SepOct02/widder.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

per WP:BRD, you discuss now

To editor Chianti: I see no reason to change the link to German Army (1935–1945). Please explain. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote in the ES: "Blitzkrieg was combined arms, not only Army". It was essential for the Blitzkrieg that not only the Army with infantry and tanks was involved, for the success of Blitzkrieg the close air support from Luftwaffe was absolutely essential. Therefore: not Army but Wehrmacht. See article combined arms: "In World War II combined arms was a fundamental part of some operational doctrines like the German Blitzkrieg or the Soviet deep battle doctrine" and article "Blitzkrieg is a method of warfare whereby an attacking force, spearheaded by a dense concentration of armoured and motorised or mechanised infantry formations with close air support, breaks through the opponent's line of defence by short, fast, powerful attacks and then dislocates the defenders, using speed and surprise to encircle them with the help of air superiority.[1][2][3] Through the employment of combined arms in manoeuvre warfare, ...image description: ... typifying fast-moving combined arms forces of classic Blitzkrieg". Blitzkrieg was always Army and Luftwaffe, therefore Wehrmacht is the correct link.

Also, please do not do complete reverts if you disagree only with parts of an edit! Read and understand WP:ROWN--Chianti (talk)