Mission-type tactics (German: Auftragstaktik, from Auftrag and Taktik; lit. 'mission tactics', also known as mission command in the United States and the United Kingdom) is a method of command and delegation where the military commander gives subordinate leaders a clearly defined objective, high-level details such as a timeframe, and the forces needed to accomplish that objective. The subordinate leaders are given planning initiative and freedom of execution: they decide on the methods to achieve the objective independently. This allows a high degree of flexibility at the operational and tactical levels of command, which allows for faster decision-making on the ground and frees the higher leadership from managing the tactical details to concentrate on the strategic picture. This may be contrasted with Befehlstaktik (lit. 'command tactics') or command-type tactics. For the success of mission-type tactics, the subordinate leaders must understand the orders' intent and be trained to act independently. The success of the doctrine rests upon the subordinates' understanding of the intent of the issuer of the orders and their willingness to achieve the goal even if their actions violate other guidance or received orders. In armies which don't, as a whole, embody mission-style tactics, taking the risk of disobeying some orders or questioning limitations in the normal course of achieving a mission is sometimes associated with elite units, which sometimes foster a particular type of innovative culture which enables and rewards this behaviour. Mission-type tactics were a central component of German armed forces' military tactics since the 19th century. Mission-type tactics are advocated but not always used by the chain of command in the US, Canadian, Dutch and British armies. The term Auftragstaktik was coined by the tactic's opponents, who preferred Normaltaktik (lit. 'normal tactic'). Strictly speaking, the term Auftragstaktik grammatically appears to refer to a type of tactics, rather than a method of leadership and delegation. Therefore, in the modern German Army, the Bundeswehr, the term Führen mit Auftrag (lit. 'leading by mission') is used instead. However, the older and shorter but unofficial term is more widespread.
Etymology When it is translated to English, the German word, which has never been part of the official German military's lexicon, loses some of its effect. The German word does not describe a set of tactics per se, and it certainly neither is limited to the tactical level of operations nor a method of leadership. However, it encapsulates a style of command: "tactics focused on accomplishing the task/mission", as opposed to Befehlstaktik ("tactics focused on executing a set of orders"). Direct orders are an exception in the German military, and "tasks" are the standard instrument of leadership from the high command down to the squad level. Many other terms were used to denote concepts of mission-type tactics in Germany between 1891 and 1914, a few being Freies Verfahren (lit. 'free method'), Freie Taktik (lit. 'free tactics'), Auftragsverfahren (lit. 'mission method'), Individualverfahren (lit. 'individual method') and Initiativverfahren (lit. 'initiative method'). A discussion of the evolution of the terminology is given by Stephan Leistenschneider.
Characteristics
As a crucial characteristic of this method of command and delegation, subordinate leaders must understand the intent of their orders, be given proper guidance, and be trained to act independently. Conversely, superior commanders must give their subordinates no more orders than are essential (every order given is regarded as an additional constraint upon its recipient) and to be rigorous, clear and succinct in the expression of their commands. The success of the doctrine rests upon the recipient of orders understanding the intent of whoever issues the orders and acting to achieve the goal, even if their actions violate other guidance or orders they have received. Mission-type tactics assume the possibility of violating other previously expressed limitations in order to achieve a mission. They are a concept most easily sustained in a decentralised command culture. This stands in contrast to organizational structures in which, at every level, a subordinate is only expected and therefore only trained to follow detailed orders. The classic German Auftragstaktik approach called for every commander to be trained to function effectively at two levels of command above his appointment; a platoon commander—an appointment that was, and is, an NCO one in the German Army—would be expected to control battalion actions, if need be. Some would say that today, such a culture is associated only with elite units, not a whole army. Few armies seem to have mastered the approach. The Wehrmacht are perhaps the premier example, a degree of competence that was achieved only after rigorous training under Hans von Seeckt between 1919 and 1935. Since World War II, only the Israeli Defence Force seems to have come close to matching the Wehrmacht of World War II in the exercise of command in this style, partly because of a conscious decision on the part of Moshe Dayan. He fought under British command in World War II and attended a British Army Staff training course that his memoirs state greatly disappointed him. This style of command originates in a state (Prussia) that saw itself as small, surrounded by enemies and in imminent danger of destruction; the same may be said of Israel. That may offer a clue to the failure of other equally developed armies to adopt this way of exercising command. For example, the British Army in 1987 announced an intention to adopt 'Mission Command', but an internal 2004 British Army review of command and control in the Iraq War in 2003 clearly shows that it had achieved the reverse: British orders were substantially more detailed, and subordinates more constrained than twenty years prior. This may indicate that simply adding "process" does not result in Auftragstaktik.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
