General Patton and Mission Command: The Battle of the Bulge Essay

Six principles comprise the philosophy of mission command: (a) build cohesive teams through mutual trust; (b) create share understanding; (c) provide clear commander’s intent; (d) exercise disciplined initiative; (e) use mission orders; and (f) accept prudent risk. When combined together, these six principles assist the commander in balancing the aforementioned art of command and science of control. To understand how General Robert E. Lee’s performance at Gettysburg lacked the marks of a great mission commander necessitates a deeper understanding of the individual principles of mission command.

The Battle of the Bulge also known as “Ardennes Offensive”, started on December 16, 1944. The Battle of the bulge, is significantly known as what ruined the German army and brought about the end of the war. The battle got its name from poorly protected stretch of hilly, woody forest “bulge” that Germans made between its allies. Hitler used this area of 80-mile dense forest, believing that his forces would be able to surround and cut off

Operational leaders down to the platoon and squad level have recently faced increasingly complex missions in uncertain operational environments. Accordingly, Army doctrine has shifted to officially recognize mission command, which enables leaders at the lowest level feasible to “exercise disciplined initiative” in the accomplishment of a larger mission. The operational process consists of six tenants: understand, visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess. During the battle of Fallujah, LtGen Natonski understood the intent two levels up, visualizing courses of action for both allies and the enemy, and leading his organization into combat while directing his officers and soldiers to meet his intent. He visualized that Marines alone could not accomplish the mission. He understood that without the support of Iraqi police and a task force from the Army with

     The Battle of the bulge took place on December sixteenth 1944. More than a million men participated in this battle including some 600,000 Germans, 500,000 Americans, and 55,000 British which made it

Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0 defines mission command as “the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (U.S Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2015, p. 1). The six principles of mission command direct leaders to build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. These principles enable subordinates that

Mission command consist of the following six principles: build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create sheared understanding, provide clear commander’s

Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (ADP, 1).

According to Army ADP 6-0, mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander, using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent, to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations (CAPE, 2012). Effective mission command can generally be analyzed according to the six principles outlined in ADRP 6-0. The six principles of mission command are to: build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk (CAPE, 2012). This paper provides a brief overview of the

What might have been the setback we previously faced in making decisive, clear or sound effective decisions? Was it a defect in how Commanders and Leaders led units or troops, or perhaps the philosophy in which we chose to command and control every aspect of the battlefield? What does it mean to recognize or comprehend the art of Command and the science of Control? The six principles of mission command are key in developing a cohesive team that will support all aspects of the mission. Asking “why” is now encouraged when it pertains to certain situations or missions. Understanding the purpose of why a course of action or desired outcome is necessary, leads to mission success and a cohesive unit with thinking leaders. Thinking clearly usually isn’t an issue for most leaders, but position an individual in a situation of extreme stress or complexity, then there might be a reason to be concerned. Through

The post D-Day Allied assault that swept through France was halted by Hitler’s unexpected counter-attack through the Ardennes, resulting in a confrontation named the Battle of the Bulge.

Commanders at all levels face increasingly challenging scenarios as the operational environment changes. Some instinctively motivate and empower their subordinates to think and act independently, thereby influencing actions during combat. However, those who understand the commanders' activities of mission command will influence not only subordinates, but the outcome of the battle as well. Mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders.1 Commanders who understood the importance of mission command was Major General Horatio Gates. General Gates at the Battle of Saratoga successfully

There are a number of qualities that quantify good leaderships and good leaders. According to Kouzes and Posner in their book The Leadership Challenge, all successful leaders have (5) practices in common. They “Model the Way”, “Inspire a shared vision”, “Challenge the process”, “enable others to act” and “encourage the heart”(15). Never is there a more important time to have exemplary leadership, than in a time of war. Both the American Civil War and World War II showed what was possible through good leadership. From abolishing slavery and preserving the Union, to fighting tyranny and oppression abroad, both events in American history had a profound impact on all those involved. The impact would most certainly be different if not for the leadership of Colonel Lawrence Chamberlain of the Union Army during the Civil War and General George S. Patton during World War II. Both leaders possessed the 5 practices essential for god leadership, yet both leaders to different approaches to accomplish their goals.

Brigadier General (BG) James M. Gavin, 82nd Airborne Division, U.S. Army, was one of the distinguish Generals to contribute in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944. BG Gavin commanded the 82nd and the 101st Airborne Divisions. He was responsible for many decisive operations that were key for the success of the battle. He maintained firing positions for engaging the Germans counteroffensive attacks. Simultaneously, his Mission Command practices brought him to the success of occupying two important cities in Belgium.

The Battle of the Bulge, the largest battle of the Western front ended when the Germans failed to capture the Allied stronghold of the Bastogne, Belgium. The goal of the mission was to sap the German's will to fight and to and to ensure that German troops could not move East to fight the Soviet Union. April 30, Hitler committed suicide and all the German forces surrendered on May 8, Known as Victory in Europe Day or V-E Day. In the Pacific, Japan did not capitulate when the Germans did. By late 1944, there was an Allied victory but with an invasion of Japan. In order to get them to surrender loomed. Japan was given orders to fight until death. It took a month for American forces to eliminate Japanese resistance. There were bombings of Japanese

The Battle of the Bulge was a war in World War 2 that took place in the forest of Wallonia, Belgium and Oesling, Luxembourg. The war took place on December 16th, 1944 and ended January 25th, 1945. The attack was an offensive campaign by the Germans that caught the Allies off guard. The Germans barely used radio traffic and moved equipment and troops in the dark. The Germans brought 406,342 men, 1,214 tanks, tank destroyers, assault guns, and 4,224 artillery pieces while the allies only had 288,741 men, 483 tanks, 499 tank destroyers, 971 anti tank and artillery pieces. The Battle of the Bulge was one of the bloodiest attacks in World War 2 as thousands of both Allied and Axis soldiers died. The Battle of the Bulge was also called “Unternehmen