Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Baker Street Irregulars

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                 

Randomized pool of Military Leaders

Confound your enemies by random swapping out of your own military's leaders and planners.
  (+7)
(+7)
  [vote for,
against]

Different military leaders have differing styles - ie some are bold, some cautious, some favour full-on frontal assaults while others prefer cunning and so forth. The enemy will learn this style and counter-plan accordingly. This idea is to create a pool of Generals with attendant planners who are selected randomly at random intervals to take over leading the campaign. They are constantly informed of the existing position of all assets and troops but NOT told of their side's intended strategy and are encouraged to follow their own heads once they are put in charge at a moment's notice.

This would drive the enemy's planners to despair trying to anticipate your side's next move. Once they think they've figured out one of your Generals' military style there is always some Other General.

AusCan531, Dec 17 2014

Erich von Manstein http://en.m.wikiped.../Erich_von_Manstein
Not a Russophile … [8th of 7, Dec 18 2014]

The Starfish and the Spider - The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations http://media.portla.../2008/10/380532.pdf
Full Text [LimpNotes, Dec 22 2014]

The Starfish and the Spider - The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations http://www.healthsy..._and_The_Spider.pdf
Synopsis [LimpNotes, Dec 22 2014]

[link]






       My God, it's full of stars...   

       Nah. Militaries are driven by the capabilites of their respective divisions. Swapping the leader out still keeps the same boats, planes, rockets, and tanks with the same tactical advantages.
RayfordSteele, Dec 18 2014
  

       There's a reason [RayfordSteele] that this wasn't posted under War:Psychological.
AusCan531, Dec 18 2014
  

       Well, at least it's not in .... Oh, wait ...
8th of 7, Dec 18 2014
  

       So, also swap out all of the equipment and personnell?
pocmloc, Dec 18 2014
  

       You should go for what the enemy expects the least, replace your generals with their generals, on a heftier salary.
not_morrison_rm, Dec 18 2014
  

       Baked.   

       NATO.   

       <link>
8th of 7, Dec 18 2014
  

       The traditional welcome to the new officer, "Yeah! Yeah!" Is updated and extended with voice and drums, i.e. a 3rd 'yeah!' & a roll.
pocmloc, Dec 18 2014
  

       It seems like any advantage due to unpredictability would be overcome by the disadvantage due to lack of a cohesive strategy. Resources would be wasted redistributing resources.   

       It seems like this would be true in chess as well. Is it possible that [21]'s chess master was observing that it took more moves and required more thought to defeat the idiot, not that the probability of victory for the chess master was any less.   

       I could see a war taking longer to resolve if one side is randomly changing their strategy, requiring both sides to spend more time redeploying resources, but it the end it will be a disadvantage to the ones making the changes.   

       Now if you could make the opposing side think that you are stupid by apparently changing strategies all the time yet have an overall coherent strategy that is not too badly damaged by the overhead involved in the apparent switching, then it might work.
scad mientist, Dec 18 2014
  

       Yes, that's served the USA surprisingly welll over the decades …
8th of 7, Dec 18 2014
  

       //Now if you could make the opposing side think that you are stupid by apparently changing strategies all the time yet have an overall coherent strategy that is not too badly damaged by the overhead involved in the apparent switching, then it might work.//   

       they're on to me...   

       //Swapping the leader out still keeps the same boats, planes, rockets, and tanks//   

       What if we added a shaggy dog?
AusCan531, Dec 19 2014
  

       [+] I speculate that changing leaders causes the same confusion amongst the troops as it would in the enemy. This is not necessarily bad but it would result in some changes in how the organization operates. The induced chaos at General level creates a power instability/void and this power is filled by subordinate officers. Decentralizing the organization in this way does make it more flexible and adaptable, and as long as there is a common strategic ethos shared by the subordinate powers, it makes it stronger as well. <link>
LimpNotes, Dec 22 2014
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle