General Patton and the Battle of the Bulge
Mission command is an important part of what makes a military leader successful. It is not easy to accomplish but will lead to victory when done well. Mission command can be broken down into six sub-categories consisting of, mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. During the Battle of the Bulge General George S. Patton was in charge of the United States Third Army and demonstrated many of the qualities that make up mission command. His successful use of these tenants of mission command not only led to the multiple successes of the Third Army but also a victory at the Battle of the Bulge. …show more content…
General Patton was an experienced commander and developed many of the Third Army’s plans however his plans would need to understood as they were disseminated down to the lowest soldier. Thus, Patton was, as a commander required to rely heavily on a clear commander’s intent to ensure subordinates would be able to execute plans once they made contact with the enemy. One of the ways General Patton was able to do this was by setting conditions in which his units would enact different plans based off the disposition of the German forces. (Hayes 2006) By establishing three different lines of effort General Patton was able to demonstrate to his subordinates is overall intent even if the German forces were arrayed in an unexpected …show more content…
(Beevor 2006) When examining how he was able to command these soldiers, it is the six warfighter functions that help to shed some light on his success. General Patton’s use of mission command, although not always perfect, did contribute to his success. Of the six tenants to mission command, General George S Patton was able to conduct each one to a degree of success. Although he did have set backs, like his incident with the soldiers suffering from battle fatigue in Sicily, on the whole, his soldiers did trust him to lead them into battle. He was also a commander who diligently planned the orders he would give his subordinate commanders and thus his use of mission orders conveyed a clear commander’s intent and created a shared understanding of the battle plans the Third Army would be conducting. He was always itching to be on the offensive and would jump at the opportunity to exercise disciplined initiative. This urge to be on the offensive often put his units in the thick of the fight, and though he would make contingency plans to his actions, he would accept prudent risk often. General Patton did not always conduct mission command perfectly and did make mistakes from time to time, but his leadership saw to the success of the Third Army at the Battle of the
Mission command is an important part of what makes a military leader successful. It is not easy to accomplish but will lead to victory when done well. Mission command can be broken down into six sub-categories consisting of, mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. During the Battle of the Bulge General George S. Patton was in charge of the United States Third Army and demonstrated many of the qualities that make up mission command. His successful use of these tenants of mission command not only led to the multiple successes of the Third Army but also a victory at the Battle of the Bulge. …show more content…
General Patton was an experienced commander and developed many of the Third Army’s plans however his plans would need to understood as they were disseminated down to the lowest soldier. Thus, Patton was, as a commander required to rely heavily on a clear commander’s intent to ensure subordinates would be able to execute plans once they made contact with the enemy. One of the ways General Patton was able to do this was by setting conditions in which his units would enact different plans based off the disposition of the German forces. (Hayes 2006) By establishing three different lines of effort General Patton was able to demonstrate to his subordinates is overall intent even if the German forces were arrayed in an unexpected …show more content…
(Beevor 2006) When examining how he was able to command these soldiers, it is the six warfighter functions that help to shed some light on his success. General Patton’s use of mission command, although not always perfect, did contribute to his success. Of the six tenants to mission command, General George S Patton was able to conduct each one to a degree of success. Although he did have set backs, like his incident with the soldiers suffering from battle fatigue in Sicily, on the whole, his soldiers did trust him to lead them into battle. He was also a commander who diligently planned the orders he would give his subordinate commanders and thus his use of mission orders conveyed a clear commander’s intent and created a shared understanding of the battle plans the Third Army would be conducting. He was always itching to be on the offensive and would jump at the opportunity to exercise disciplined initiative. This urge to be on the offensive often put his units in the thick of the fight, and though he would make contingency plans to his actions, he would accept prudent risk often. General Patton did not always conduct mission command perfectly and did make mistakes from time to time, but his leadership saw to the success of the Third Army at the Battle of the