Question about modern Generals.

[Civilian1987]

I had a question and who better to answer than you guys. Why do modern generals generally refrain from fighting beside their soldiers? Does this bother you guys or do you like it that way?

[Invictus]

I had a question and who better to answer than you guys. Why do modern generals generally refrain from fighting beside their soldiers? Does this bother you guys or do you like it that way?

Congratulations. You've found a question that actually hasn't been asked on here before (to the best of my knowledge).

I'm not sure what you based your assumption on, or why you care. Define "modern" Generals.
I would think if you were a student of military history though, the answer to this would be fairly evident.

[Civilian1987]

Congratulations. You've found a question that actually hasn't been asked on here before (to the best of my knowledge).

I'm not sure what you based your assumption on, or why you care. Define "modern" Generals.
I would think if you were a student of military history though, the answer to this would be fairly evident.

First, thank you for not yelling at me on my first question Ranger Invictus! :D

I have an interest in military history, but I'm a far cry from an expert. I know of many battles through history and even some of the tactics used. But once again, I'm certainly no expert. The only modern General (say, last 50 years) that I know of that I've heard of doing anything with his troops was General McChrystal. Most American Generals from what I've seen are usually found in Washington D.C. or at a base with a large guard. Where if you look through history many if not most generals led their troops in battle.

There is no reason for me to be asking this other than curiosity. I was curious as to why they no longer lead their troops personally and what the soldiers thought of this, and their generals. The thing that sparked the idea for this question was a documentary on Alexander The Great that I was watching. The one Military Historian said, and I'm paraphrasing here "There is a big difference between a general saying 'Go get em boys!' and a general saying 'Follow me boys!"

[soldier7489]

I think it just has to do a lot with the technology and the way of live versus what things were like back in the day.

Another thing that you have to look at is that Generals aren't really that replaceable. There is a reason why they are at the rank of General, because they are among the very best of officers. If one of our Generals got blasted leading a convoy through Afghanistan, that would just be a bad situation all around.

[Slowpoke]

I think it just has to do a lot with the technology and the way of live versus what things were like back in the day.

Another thing that you have to look at is that Generals aren't really that replaceable. There is a reason why they are at the rank of General, because they are among the very best of officers. If one of our Generals got blasted leading a convoy through Afghanistan, that would just be a bad situation all around.

I went ahead and approved your post youngster......but your next post needs to be in the Introductions section. It's site SOP and we just feel better knowing who we're talking to.

[Civilian1987]

Another thing that you have to look at is that Generals aren't really that replaceable.

I don't know about that. During the Civil War Lincoln lost a lot of Generals and a lot of horses. He was more upset about losing the horses, his reasoning being "I can make more Generals, but horses cost money."

[Baseplate]

Another thing that you have to look at is that Generals aren't really that replaceable.

I don't know about that. During the Civil War Lincoln lost a lot of Generals and a lot of horses. He was more upset about losing the horses, his reasoning being "I can make more Generals, but horses cost money."

things might have changed a bit since then. 1) generals are too busy looking at power point to be fighting 2) think of the PR nightmare of a general getting offed 3) generals command divisions there aren't to many divisional attacks going on 4) the coffee is better in the JOC 5) unmanned drones give as good of a overall picture as one can get elseware 6) officers are pussies 7) officers fuck up shit for the men who do the real work

[Civilian1987]

things might have changed a bit since then. 1) generals are too busy looking at power point to be fighting 2) think of the PR nightmare of a general getting offed 3) generals command divisions there aren't to many divisional attacks going on 4) the coffee is better in the JOC 5) unmanned drones give as good of a overall picture as one can get elseware 6) officers are pussies 7) officers fuck up shit for the men who do the real work

Thank you for your reply Ranger Baseplate. What you say begs another question though, what do enlisted soldiers look for/want from an officer? I've known a ton of people that have been in or currently are in the military. Only one of which is an officer (Air Force). And regardless of which branch they are in, they all dislike or even hate the officers they serve under.

[Baseplate]

things might have changed a bit since then. 1) generals are too busy looking at power point to be fighting 2) think of the PR nightmare of a general getting offed 3) generals command divisions there aren't to many divisional attacks going on 4) the coffee is better in the JOC 5) unmanned drones give as good of a overall picture as one can get elseware 6) officers are pussies 7) officers fuck up shit for the men who do the real work

Thank you for your reply Ranger Baseplate. What you say begs another question though, what do enlisted soldiers look for/want from an officer? I've known a ton of people that have been in or currently are in the military. Only one of which is an officer (Air Force). And regardless of which branch they are in, they all dislike or even hate the officers they serve under.

1) to be left the fuck alone 2) to take up for you when you fuck up

[mortar_guy78]

If you are really interestied in the answer to your question, read the book "The Mask of Command" by John Keegan.

[Civilian1987]

If you are really interestied in the answer to your question, read the book "The Mask of Command" by John Keegan.

I'll check it out, thanks for the suggestion Ranger Mortar_Guy78.

[rangertough]

If you are interested in a different view of how many Soldiers feel their leaders should act read "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield.

Tough

[rgrokelley]

I tried to post a reply to this, this morning, with much documentation and eloquence, and then the fucking server that ArmyRanger.com uses decided to shut off.

I hate that shit!

Anyway, the short version...

Throughout history generals did not lead their troops. This is not a new thing, but has been going on since the beginning of time. If a general is leading the troops from the front he is not being a general, he is now being a captain, or a lieutenant, and he is micromanaging. The reason that the third category of ranks in the US Army is called "company and field grade" is because it is the highest rank you ever saw that was actually on the field of battle (by the way the highest rank in that category is colonel). A general is supposed to be seeing the big picture, not down on the ground slugging it out. Every battle is one big fuckup. The minute the first shot is fired both sides make monumental mistakes. The winner of any battle is the one who can react to the enemy's mistake first and exploit it, while trying to minimize their own mistakes. A general cannot figure that one out if he is in the front. In the front the men who actually fight the battle have a very, very narrow view of what is going on. Life and death is played out within the distance of a football field. If you are focusing on the football field, you miss what is happening outside the stadium.

Another problem with generals leading from the front, which does happen from time to time, is that if the general is highly respected and loved by the men, they will stop what they are doing to make sure he is safe. This happened to Washington, and R.E. Lee. The men would stop their attack, and yell "Lee to the Rear!" and now attempt to safeguard him.

No one would say that Patton, Rommel, or Eisenhower were not great generals, but they also weren't in the lead tank pushing the fight to the enemy.

[Civilian1987]

If you are interested in a different view of how many Soldiers feel their leaders should act read "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield.

Tough

I've read that book Ranger Rangertough (Am I being redundant?). It was very good. But what I was looking for is what modern soldiers think.


rgrokelley: You make a lot of good points, but I'd like some clarification on this one point if you would be so kind.

The winner of any battle is the one who can react to the enemy's mistake first and exploit it, while trying to minimize their own mistakes. A general cannot figure that one out if he is in the front. In the front the men who actually fight the battle have a very, very narrow view of what is going on.

Does this not contradict itself? Wasn't one of the reasons that Napoleon Bonaparte was so successful was that he allowed his lower ranking officers to make changes as they saw fit in order to allow mistakes to be corrected more quickly and efficiently?

[rgrokelley]

If you are interested in a different view of how many Soldiers feel their leaders should act read "Gates of Fire" by Steven Pressfield.

Tough

I've read that book Ranger Rangertough (Am I being redundant?). It was very good. But what I was looking for is what modern soldiers think.


rgrokelley: You make a lot of good points, but I'd like some clarification on this one point if you would be so kind.

The winner of any battle is the one who can react to the enemy's mistake first and exploit it, while trying to minimize their own mistakes. A general cannot figure that one out if he is in the front. In the front the men who actually fight the battle have a very, very narrow view of what is going on.

Does this not contradict itself? Wasn't one of the reasons that Napoleon Bonaparte was so successful was that he allowed his lower ranking officers to make changes as they saw fit in order to allow mistakes to be corrected more quickly and efficiently?

Virtually all armies that win allow their company level commander to make changes as they see fit, but it is only in their area of influence. Napoleon knew that if a company grade officer saw a gap, he needed to go for it. However he also was able to see the enemies larger mistakes at his level, and would counter many of his junior officers decisions, so they could be used in the greater value of flanking actions.