Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

'Battle Procedure' and the orders process


Charles Fair

Recommended Posts

Chris Henschke is absolutely correct. Battle Procedure should not be confused with Orders or Contact Drills. Battle Procedure is a process or procedure that occurs to enable concurrent activity to occur and thus save time while deploying into a battle position. Orders are part of the battle procedure process, contact drills are not.

It is not that easy to describe but this is an example that may help to explain the process:

Battalion (Bn) A has orders to occupy a defensive position at location B. The Bn HQ issues a warning order (Wng O) to the rest of the Bn and it is the Wng O that initiates the battle procedure. The Wng O will outline the task and all available operational and administrative information and instructions to enable the Bn to prepare for the upcoming operation. It will also detail the RV location and timing for the Bn Orders Group (Bn O Gp) and the Bn Assembly area just short of the position to be defended or this information may be sent back later when firmer detail is known.

The Bn CO moves forward with his reconnaissance group (Bn Recce Gp) to receive his orders from the Bde Comd. Meanwhile, under the direction of the Bn 2IC, the Bn HQ and the companies (coy) start preparing for the task such as checking weapons, equipment, radios, etc and issuing rations, water, ammunition, defence stores, extra radio batteries, etc.. Ammunition is distributed down the RSM - CSM - Pl Sgt chain

Having received his orders from the Bde Comd, the Bn Comd and his Bn Recce Gp will move up unto the position his Bn has the mission of defending and reconnoitres it, determines the plan for the defence, and the CO then prepares his orders for the Bn O Gp.

In the meantime having issued the Coy Wng O, set in train the preparation of their Coys and finalised their respective checks, the Coy Comds' and their Coy Recce Gps move forward to the Bn O Gp RV to receive their orders from the CO.

In the meantime the Bn is well into its battle preparation and the distribution of stores and equipment such as defence implements, rations, ammunition water, etc This is processed down the chain from Administrative (Admin) Coy to the rifle coys, support coy, and then from Coy down to the platoons.

Having received their orders from the CO, the Coy Comds move up onto the respective positions they have been allocated, undertake their recce and prepare their orders for the Coy O Gp. The Bn Comd will also go around finalising coordination on the position, MG positions and tying in the gaps between the Coy positions.

In the meantime having set everything in motion at the platoon (Pl) level and finalised their respective checks the Pl Comds move forward to the Coy O Gp RV to receive their orders from their Coy Cond's. They will probably take their Section (Sect) Commanders with them to save time.

Meanwhile the Bn is now finalising its preparation under the 2IC chain of command, (Bn 2IC, Coy 2ICs, Pl Sgts and Sect 2ICs). If they have not gone forward with the Pl Comds, the Sect Comds move forward to the Coy O Gp RV to link up with their Pl Comds.

Having received their orders from their Coy Comd, the Pl Comds will go over the ground with their Coy Comd making sure the MG positions and Pl arcs of fire are coordinated. The Pl Comds will then write up their orders and give them to their Sect Comds. They will also go over the ground with the Sect Comds allocating them their positions and tasks, partciculalry MG positions and arcs of fire.

In the meantime the Bn is moving forward to the Assembly Area (under the 2IC chain of comd) where guides will be in position to take the Coys forward to the Coy RV's. At this point the Section Comds will take charge of their sections take them up onto the position and issue orders on the ground. The Pl Comds will brief the Pl Sgts of the current situation, layout of the position etc. The Bn 2IC and Coy 2IC will be setting up the Admin area.

I hope I haven't made a hash of the explanation; it has been a while but that is what battle procedure is about. Concurrent activity to prepare a unit for a task in order to save time.

Regards

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

Quite a good example of the Grouping System, but as you are aware, knowledge of the grouping system (or functional groupings) is only one component of four main principles that allow Battle Procedure to be achieved. The others that allow Battle Procedure to occur are (apologies if granny is sucking on an egg here :) , but it is useful for others who may not understand the concept):

1. Thinking ahead, at all levels, so that any potential tasks (and implied tasks) can be achieved.

2. Having effective, well-practiced, drills and operating procedures.

3. Getting on with any of the concurrent activity, which, of course, is initiated by the Warning Order.

Points 1 and 2 require prior training, practice, latitude of thought, and understood procedures (or guiding principles, such as tactical notes). I would argue that contact drills and Immediate Actions are part of point 2. These cannot be taken as a given and having this point weighed off well before going into action can help prevent something from becoming a total military disaster, and is usually the difference between professional well-trained fighting forces; and armed irregulars or ill-trained conscripts.

Albeit not one of the four main principles of Battle Procedure - at a Company-level definition anyway (though at point 3 we have the Warning Order)- at more of a formation such as Brigade and Divisional level, providing timely Orders ensures that the units and sub-units involved in any future event, have the time to prepare sufficiently for the task.

Though, of course, time not being wasted is brought about by concurrent activity which is initiated by the Warning Order.

Knowing what he has to do and how (which is in the aim of Battle Procedure) is detailed in the Orders, and how he is going to achieve it is given by Orders (in addition to tactics and 'actions on' that the soldier should be well-versed in - points 1 and 2). So I would say that the Orders, in whichever format are not only a function of battle procedure, but can have a direct bearing or effect on Battle Procedure from the off.

May I add that, albeit not one of the more glamorous parts of Battle Procedure, point 3, holds equally the same weight, if not more than the rest? As we know, good administration and preparation can prevent the obvious: Prior Preparation and Planning Prevents P**$ Poor Performance ;)

Hope this has added something to the discussion.

Aye

Tom McC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

I don't disagree with anything you have said other than, in my experience, contact drills, immediate action drills and battle drills are immediate actions when contact with the enemy is made, whereas battle procedure, as we practised it, was a process that took place out of contact with the enemy. Orders are an essential part of battle procedure but they are but one element of the process.

Regards

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grumpy,

In my experience authentication was used to sign off Standing and Routine Orders by the Battalion Adjutant at unit level. I can't recall if we did it for operational orders but you may be right. It indicated to the recipients that the Orders as written were authentic and correct.

Acknowledgment or ACK was used by a recipient of the orders or signals to indicate that he acknowledged receipt of and understood the order or message.

Regards

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an extremely informative thread. Having read the personal accounts and diaries of many Staff Officers who served in various arms at various times throughout the war, it is possible to glimpse some of the issues. This thread helps provide a framework for analysis, which is why the formal definitions have been created. The contributions really help to reinforce the gulf of experience and knowledge between civilians like myself and highly-trained professional officers. This same gulf existed in the Great War too, as best illustrated by Nicholson's book "Behind the Lines: An Account of Administrative Staffwork in the British Army 1914-1918."

I found the following definition of Battle Procedure online. Does it resonate with experience?:

STAGE I - DEFINITIONS:

a. What is battle procedure?

ANS. It is the complete process whereby a commander carries out his reconnaissance, prepares his plan, issues his orders and prepares and deploys the men under him to accomplish a mission;

b. Aim of BP. To ensure that the soldier is launched into battle without waste of time and with minimum fuss, knowing exactly what he has to do and how he is going to do it. It allows the commander to bring his force into battle quickly with the maximum preparation and ensures that as many actions as possible are carried out concurrently.

c. Principles of battle procedure:

(1) anticipation of future tasks at all levels;

(2) thorough knowledge of the grouping system;

(3) efficient drills for recce and the issue of orders; and

(4) early warning and concurrent activity.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris,

I think we are generally in agreement, however, in the British Army, Battle Drills are an intrinsic part of the Battle Procedure. Each (Section/Platoon/Company) commander has to be aware of the Battle Procedure for their level of command. This is possibly what is causing a difference in opinion. More of this will be clarified in my points to Robert below.

Robert,

That is pretty good. Some emphasis on the complete process, is good, as this over-arches many activities that well trained troops will be getting on with prior to any future operations. The concurrent activity and anticipation allows more time for activities such as the rehearsals (especially useful if someone is new, or has been moved into a different section within the platoon) before the operation takes place. Some activities will be almost second nature to well-trained and experienced soldiers, who will have had various drills inculcated into them well before the battle takes place. In this will be their method of dealing with a problem such as a machine gun position. This does not need to be covered by the orders, in any detail, as there should already be an established operating procedure that is understood and practiced before the event. Understandably, this has to be known well before the first bullet goes 'down the two-way range' and cannot be rigid, therefore, the soldiers need to have the flexibility to adapt the process to the tactical situation.

Your definition of Battle Procedure is not bad:

To ensure that the soldier is launched into battle without waste of time and with minimum fuss, knowing exactly what he has to do and how he is going to do it.

As can be deduced, what he has to do, is the Mission

How he is going to do it will include all sorts factors, such as: ground, cover, time, routes to, formations, actions on FUP/Objective, equipment, fire support, enemy strengths, etc.

Grumpy,

Those receiving a Warning Order have to acknowledge its receipt.

Aye

Tom McC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Tom. Some further information from the same source:

GROUPING SYSTEM:

a. There are three groups within the system: recce group, orders group, and main body

b. The recce group is a group that consists of a commander and all those he requires for advice. This group must be able to protect itself and communicate ie. by radio.

c. The composition of a recce group in a rifle coy is as follows: coy comd; sp arms reps, incl: FOO (forward observation officer) or FC, air def, engr/pnr, A armour, and recce; comms/protection elm.

d. The orders group is a group composed of the recce group and junior commanders. The composition of an orders group is as follows: recce group, 2IC, CSM, Observation/Wpns Det Comd, pl comds; and others as required/desired.

e. The main body is composed of the remainder of the coy: assy area/hide recce pty, remainder of F ech, and A ech.

SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IN THE BATTLE PROCEDURE [at Combat Team level]

  1. Receives warning order
  2. Quick map study and time estimate
  3. Issue initial Wng O
  4. Receive orders
  5. Conduct Msn analysis
  6. Make a detailed time estimate
  7. Conduct a map study and prepare an outline plan
  8. Prepare a recce plan
  9. Conduct recce
  10. Do remainder of the estimate
  11. Issue Supp Wng O
  12. Prepare and Issue Orders
  13. Coord activities and requirements of subordinates
  14. Supervise depl
  15. Execute Msn

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert - your definition of BP is the one that I learnt by rote as an O/Cdt back in 1985/86. (Knowing it and being able to apply it was absolutely vital for getting through Sandhurst and subsequent infantry courses.)

I am looking at how the 'learning curve' applied to my grandfather's battalion, 1/19th London Regiment. Part of my approach is to look at how orders were given, battle procedure etc. as I think this is an aspect of the learning curve that has not had much attention.

The first use of the phrase 'Warning Order' in the battalion's War Diary occurs on 16 August 1917. (This is perhaps quite late given some of the posts above - though perhaps this is just down to the fact that the battalion had a quiet first half of 1917.) I am also gradually working through the War Diaries of 141 Brigade and 47 Division which I think will be more informative.

To give a specific example, one series of operations that I have been looking at is a series of trench raids carried out by 47 Division in late June/early July 1916. These were the first raids that the Division had carried out since arriving in France in March 1915, and its first offensive operations since Loos. As such, they were very important for 'warming up' the Division before it arrived on the Somme. Its next attack would be at High Wood. Each brigade carried out a raid of which the 1/19th did the first one. (It was discussed a few months ago on this thread.)

The CO's orders make interesting reading. They are very detailed and (including numerous annexes for artillery fireplan etc.) cover 12 densely typed foolscap pages. However, they wouldn't pass a platoon or company commanders course today. Although they almost certainly cover everything needed, to my late 20th Century* eyes it is not in what I would call the 'right' sequence (whether using the modern orders sequence or the Information, Intention, Action of WW2).

Because of this, if I had been commanding one of the five platoons taking part in the raid I would have found it difficult to quickly 'extract' my own orders to give to my own platoon. (I had to keep going back through the orders to ensure that I fully understood the plan and to pick up important details that were in the 'wrong' place.) It would have been doubly hard had I only received them orally. These are some weaknesses of the orders as I see them:

* Groupings - these are not clearly laid out with the attachments and detachments. Its only when you get further through the plan that you realise each platoon has a half-section of REs attached

* Execution - no clear summary of the plan as in 'Summary of Exection'

* Task - no clear statement of the task of each platoon - vital as the task for each platoon becomes that platoon's Mission. (The info is there but not in one place and not expressed clearly - objective is given as a length of trench between certain grid refs to be held and blocked, to kill/capture enemy and destroy as much as possible.)

* Command & Signal and Service Support - details are scattered throughout the orders

In practice the battalion had 4 or 5 days to train and rehearse for the raid so this probably didn't matter too much as they would have been able to iron out the bugs.

However, it was thinking about these sort of things which led to my original posting. Because the orders feel very cumbersome, I cannot help feeling that the BP of the battalion of 1916 was not as slick as it could have been.

(* well it was when I learnt this stuff and things may have moved on since then...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, an excellent approach. I have been coming at this from a different direction, through as many diaries and accounts published by Staff Officers as I can find. This has been supplemented with examples of Operations Orders and other paperwork from War Diaries, etc. The problem is that not having had any formal training means putting things together in a more piecemeal way. Battle Procedure is but one example of the way in which lessons from the Great and subsequent wars are formally represented now. Tom Clancy's book 'Into the Storm' has been providing further insights into this, through his recording of the details surrounding Franks' command of VII Corps in Operation Desert Storm. By applying formalisms such as BP, I can immediately see how you can assess the thoroughness and clarity (or otherwise) of Operations Orders and the like. Thanks again for sharing raising this.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are generally in agreement, however, in the British Army, Battle Drills are an intrinsic part of the Battle Procedure. Each (Section/Platoon/Company) commander has to be aware of the Battle Procedure for their level of command. This is possibly what is causing a difference in opinion.

Tom,

Agreed. In fact I think we are in complete agreement. As you have described them, Battle Drills are an intrinsic part of Battle Procedure. We don't actually use the term and it was my mistake to assume that they covered what we call immediate action and contact drills.

Best wishes

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the following definition of Battle Procedure online. Does it resonate with experience?:

Absolutely Robert. That and your subsequent posting outline the elements precisely.

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

The definintion that you have is older. A different one can be found (on page 2), along with a mnemonic that many will be familiar with:

http://www.behindlines.com/downloads/publi...ad/handbook.PDF

If you look back at my post 24, it may help understand why I mentioned what fire support is available.

Charles,

I have often in my readings seen that the Orders, albeit contain a lot of detail, are often cumbersome and not sequenceed that well. Having said that, the content headings are quite similar.

Aye

Tom McC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Just to add to the understanding of Battle Procedure, I found the following information this morning.

" Battle procedure allows the commander to launch his force into battle quickly and with the maximum preparation. It ensures that as many as possible of the actions required before the battle are carried out concurrently. This saves time." Source:Infantry Training, Volume 4, Part 2, The Platoon (provisional) 1964, Australian Military Forces issued by the Military Board 1/7/64. Chapter 11. Section 51, page 117

Battle procedure can be defined as: 'the concurrent processes by which reconnaissance, planning, orders, and preliminary movement are completed and troops deployed.' Source - Manual of Land Warfare Part One, Vol 6, Pam 1, Staff Duties in the Field 1979, Chap 3 Section 22

The Warning Order that initiates the process comprises:

WNGO

Probable tasks or moves

Earliest time of move or degree of notice [to move]

RV and time for OGp or time written orders to be expected

Orders for move of adv parties or other prelim moves

Admin instructions - rest and feeding, regrouping, transport, prelim moves to Assy Area, etc

Ack

Source - Staff Duties (Australia) 1966 Chap 5 Section 8.

Cheers

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Click here to see a typewritten field order of the 3rd Battalion, 137th U.S. Infantry from September 1918 directing its movement to its staging area for the Meuse-Argonne offensive. The battalion was part of the 35th Infantry Division, a Kansas National Guard unit then on active federal service. Although the order is short and to the point, it does not seem to follow any type of preconceived format. I speculate that the U.S. Army did not start using the familiar five-paragraph field order format--situation, mission, execution, administration and logistics, and command and signal--until sometime after the Great War but before World War II.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very informative thread, thank you all.

I have only browsed the thread and not yet fully absorbed it so may have missed this component of Battle Procedure; from my limited experience training was a very important aspect of Battle Procedure particularly when there was a regrouping or an unusual task, as an example some have mentioned the training conducted before raids. Other aspects I can think of are the need to prepare ammunition and explosives for the task, such as in more recent times preparing non-electric detonators and detonation cord for "daisy chaining" Claymore mines prior to going out on a planned ambush, in WW1 terms preparing the explosive and fuel bunker charges.

From memory of my time in infantry, those sections, platoons, companies and battalions who took all aspects of Battle Procedure seriously in training, and not just an excuse to have a snooze, were always far more successful than those who didn't. I certainly don't know of a commander who was not appreciative of his 2ic having everything prepared right down to the mud models for orders, which meant he could spend more time on training. The Empires Army that came out of Third Ypres seems to have been one that had taken Battle Procedure to heart which meant it could react to the unexpected far better, more quickly and therefore take advantage of the unknown.

Cheers,

Hendo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents,

I have just been looking through Field Service Regulations, Operations, 1909 and Fd Svc Pocket Book, 1914 and I believe the term used at the time "Preliminary Measures" encompasses what we would know now as Battle Procedure. FSR, Ops, 1909, Chap II, Sec 13, para 3, "discusses" Preliminary Orders, which we would know as Warning Orders.

The Fd Svc Pocket Book, 1926, Ch 3, sec 13, describes the Preliminary Instructions in more detail though it does say that they are released only after the plan is approved.

The 1909 FSR and 1914 Pocket Book state that it is not good to have a set form for Orders. The 1926 Pocket Book and 1932 Pocket Book describe the Orders Sequence as:

Information:

Enemy,

Friendly.

Intention:

Method:

Administrative:

Intercommunication.

So other than a change in key word description to Situation, Mission, Execution, Administration and Logistics, and Command and Signals after 1932, it would appear that the general form of orders so well known to Commonwealth soldiers even today arose during the Great War, there must be a GHQ BEF Staff Sheet out there somewhere!

Cheers,

Hendo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following format for a field order is taken from U.S. Army Field Manual 101-5, Staff Officers' Field Manual: The Staff and Combat Orders, dated August 19, 1940. It roughly corresponds to the modern field order format as well as to the British guidance from the 1920s and 1930s that Green Acorn found.

The body is divided into five paragraphs as follows....

1. Information.

2. The decision and coordinating details of the plan applicable to the command as a whole.

3. Tactical missions for subordinate units.

4. Administration.

5. Provisions for signal communicaton, including locations and displacement of command posts.

In my experience I don't recall any organizations below the division level publishing written orders in that format, although those prepared by division or occasionally corps would be distributed down to the battalion level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From memory of my time in infantry, those sections, platoons, companies and battalions who took all aspects of Battle Procedure seriously in training, and not just an excuse to have a snooze, were always far more successful than those who didn't. I certainly don't know of a commander who was not appreciative of his 2ic having everything prepared right down to the mud models for orders, which meant he could spend more time on training.

Absolutely. Perfect Planning and Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance as they say.

The Empires Army that came out of Third Ypres seems to have been one that had taken Battle Procedure to heart which meant it could react to the unexpected far better, more quickly and therefore take advantage of the unknown.

Definitely true when you look at 1918 orders compared with those of 1916. Commanders and staffs at all levels had moved up the learning curve, knew their jobs better and could rely much more on tried and tested SOPs, which meant that orders would have been simpler and less chock-full of detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To amend what I said earlier, the U.S. Army was using the five-paragraph field order format during the Great War. Examples of it are to be found here in Illinois in the World War, Volume II: History of the 33rd Division A.E.F., by Frederic Louis Huidekoper, the division's adjutant. Hopefully the link will work (in order to move from page to page I had to type the page number in the box because the backward and forward arrows don't work). The field orders shown are those for November 10 and 11, 1918, when the AEF continued to advance even though the armistice was about to go into effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...