A Good Simple "Mission Analysis" Template

[vonGarvin]

You're right, "conduct" is not a mission verb.  Whoever gave you that should have been fired.  Out of a cannon.  Into the sun! (j/k: obscure Futurama reference there).
Anyway, Annex C to Chapter 6 of B-GL-331-002/FP-001 "STAFF DUTIES FOR LAND OPERATIONS", dated 01 Aug 2008 has the mission verbs, along with definitions and graphics.

OK, in the case where you are conducting a recce of an area, I agree that "conduct a recce" may not do it.  Consider the definition of "Screen":

To screen is an effect to observe, identify and report information on threats to the main force.

You are going to grid "x" to observe, identify and report into on threats to the main force, no?  I would offer up
"11D will SCREEN grid 1234 5678 in order to (insert higher purpose here.)"

Now, the higher purpose you have below "in order to define enemy presence for further platoon ops", I believe I have captured with "11D will SCREEN..."  So, you have to ask "Why do I want to know if there are enemy dudes there?"  Maybe the "further platoon ops" is digging a defensive, or carrying on the advance.  Suppose that 11 will be leading the advance.  Knowing if the Bad dudes are at 1234 5678 (or not) will affect the plan.  So, the higher purpose could be something like "in order to secure 11's advance at H Hour".  Or not. 

Again, this is a bit of a stretch because I haven't seen your whole orders.  Maybe your recce to 1234 5678 entails actually destroying any enemy there.  Then consider "GUARD":

To guard is an effect to protect the main force by fighting to gain time, while also observing and reporting information.

Note that a Guard not only fights "to gain time", but also observes and reports.  There is more to both definitions; however, those are two possibilities.


I hope this helps.

Edit to add: if you are advancing, and 11D is going to 1234 5678 to secure that advance, then I think GUARD may do it.  Also, the Technoviking only really recognises one mission verb: DESTROY!  >

 

[vonGarvin]

This merits its own response.  The differences between GUARD and SCREEN area subtle, but important.  This is why the conduct of a Mission Analysis is so important.  GUARDs normally act within range of the higher unit/formation's fire assets, SCREENs not so.  GUARDs will fight, SCREENs will not.  In the case above of going to 1234 5678 to allow the platoon to carry one could very well fit the definition of an advanced guard:

Advanced Guard. The leading element of an advancing force. The primary mission is to insure (sic) the uninterrupted  advance of the main body. The advance guard may be further divided into a vanguard and a main guard.

Please note that this is CANADIAN doctrine, and not Soviet.  An no, it makes no reference to Combat Recce Patrols! 

 

[Journeyman]

This merits its own response. 

So you post....and then you respond to your own post.

You're never alone with multiple personality disorder  ;D

 

[vonGarvin]

You're never alone with multiple personality disorder  ;D

See we I can never be an alcoholic, because we I never drink alone!  :cheers:


;D

 

[brihard]

You're right, "conduct" is not a mission verb.  Whoever gave you that should have been fired.  Out of a cannon.  Into the sun! (j/k: obscure Futurama reference there).
Anyway, Annex C to Chapter 6 of B-GL-331-002/FP-001 "STAFF DUTIES FOR LAND OPERATIONS", dated 01 Aug 2008 has the mission verbs, along with definitions and graphics.

OK, in the case where you are conducting a recce of an area, I agree that "conduct a recce" may not do it.  Consider the definition of "Screen":You are going to grid "x" to observe, identify and report into on threats to the main force, no?  I would offer up
"11D will SCREEN grid 1234 5678 in order to (insert higher purpose here.)"

Now, the higher purpose you have below "in order to define enemy presence for further platoon ops", I believe I have captured with "11D will SCREEN..."  So, you have to ask "Why do I want to know if there are enemy dudes there?"  Maybe the "further platoon ops" is digging a defensive, or carrying on the advance.  Suppose that 11 will be leading the advance.  Knowing if the Bad dudes are at 1234 5678 (or not) will affect the plan.  So, the higher purpose could be something like "in order to secure 11's advance at H Hour".  Or not. 

Again, this is a bit of a stretch because I haven't seen your whole orders.  Maybe your recce to 1234 5678 entails actually destroying any enemy there.  Then consider "GUARD":Note that a Guard not only fights "to gain time", but also observes and reports.  There is more to both definitions; however, those are two possibilities.


I hope this helps.

Edit to add: if you are advancing, and 11D is going to 1234 5678 to secure that advance, then I think GUARD may do it.  Also, the Technoviking only really recognises one mission verb: DESTROY!  >

Yeah, 'Conduct a pt recce' was never given to be in the context of a task verb; task verbs were covered very briefly in PLQ, but every set of orders I've ever gotten on recce patrols has said 'Will recce' or 'will conduct a recce'.

'Screen' seems to to me to be in the context of a static element - almost a layback recce - that is designed as an information-tripwire, as it were. It seems to imply an enemy moving towards you.

It's possible the task verbs were not written with such small elements in mind. A four man recce task could fit within any number of platoon level mission tasks.

 

[vonGarvin]

'Screen' seems to to me to be in the context of a static element - almost a layback recce - that is designed as an information-tripwire, as it were. It seems to imply an enemy moving towards you.

Remember the definition:
To screen is an effect to observe, identify and report information on threats to the main force.
First, it's an effect,  not an action, moving or static.  That's the beauty of it.  If you do "x" and because of that you are able to observe, identify and report info on threats to the main force, then you are screening, no matter what "x" is. 

I guess that mission verbs should be covered in all leadership courses, perhaps.  Still, if you have the DIN, get on to the Army Electronic Library and scope out "STAFF DUTIES FOR LAND OPERATIONS".  It has all the mission verbs, with definitions and clarifying notes.  Also, the DIN site for the Staff College (Kingston) has very good definitions as well.  PM me if you wish, and if you are on the DIN, I will send that info to your DIN account.  (The URLs, that is)

 

[Fusaki]

To screen is an effect to observe, identify and report information on threats to the main force.

I have a slightly different definition: To Screen - Given to a security element whose primary task is to observe, identify, and report information, and which only fights in self-protection.

Security, in my mind, is only a small part of what recce assets are capable of.  While "To Screen" sounds like a commander is telling his recce det "Make sure no one sneaks up on us", it does not sound like  "Go over there and get me that information".  The act of agressive intelligence gathering should have a different Task Verb, shouldn't it?

'Screen' seems to to me to be in the context of a static element - almost a layback recce - that is designed as an information-tripwire, as it were. It seems to imply an enemy moving towards you.

It's possible the task verbs were not written with such small elements in mind. A four man recce task could fit within any number of platoon level mission tasks.

This, to me, makes more sense.  I just talked about this with BulletMagnet on other means.  The questions was raised: 

How do steps 8 and 9 of Battle Procedure - prepare and conduct a recce - apply to recce patrols?

They're skipped, obviously.  You can't conduct a recce in support of your recce patrol.

The implication, then, is that Battle Procedure wasn't built around section/det level tasks.  It looks like it's just been adapted to that level for teaching purposes.

It's quite possible that the official list of Mission and Task Verbs is not built for section/det level tasks either.  While "To Screen" and "To Guard" can fit well for tasks at the platoon level and above, smaller scale tasks like point, area, and route recces just aren't considered.

If this is the case, then there should be nothing in the doctrine that stops a section commander from saying "MISSION - 11A will conduct a POINT RECCE of GR 123456 in order to...."  If no doctrine has been clearly defined, what's to stop you from considering the intent of the doctrine, and then thinking outside the box?

 

[54/102 CEF]

Ref for you - quick and dirty - see page 18

http://www.thelightningpress.com/smartbooks/smallunittactics/adobe/SUTS-1.pdf

The Words are universal - the headings come from US pams (in the refs) - many of these US pams can be found on line

Hope this assists - our freedom depends on the SMART soldier!

Canadian doctrine is at the Staff College Website - look for Kingston Garrison and CLFCSC on the DIN - they have an excellent MSN TASKS section with colour sketches and explanations

Don't take my word for it (A near quote from my AOC Course Report)  :nod:

 

[brihard]

I have a slightly different definition: To Screen - Given to a security element whose primary task is to observe, identify, and report information, and which only fights in self-protection.

Security, in my mind, is only a small part of what recce assets are capable of.  While "To Screen" sounds like a commander is telling his recce det "Make sure no one sneaks up on us", it does not sound like  "Go over there and get me that information".  The act of agressive intelligence gathering should have a different Task Verb, shouldn't it?

This, to me, makes more sense.  I just talked about this with BulletMagnet on other means.  The questions was raised: 

How do steps 8 and 9 of Battle Procedure - prepare and conduct a recce - apply to recce patrols?

They're skipped, obviously.  You can't conduct a recce in support of your recce patrol.

The implication, then, is that Battle Procedure wasn't built around section/det level tasks.  It looks like it's just been adapted to that level for teaching purposes.

It's quite possible that the official list of Mission and Task Verbs is not built for section/det level tasks either.  While "To Screen" and "To Guard" can fit well for tasks at the platoon level and above, smaller scale tasks like point, area, and route recces just aren't considered.

If this is the case, then there should be nothing in the doctrine that stops a section commander from saying "MISSION - 11A will conduct a POINT RECCE of GR 123456 in order to...."  If no doctrine has been clearly defined, what's to stop you from considering the intent of the doctrine, and then thinking outside the box?

Yeah, I think the task verbs simply were not written with such a small context in mind, and understandably so. In any case, lack of formal doctrine has never prevented me from saying "...will conduct a point recce of GR..."

Also, if I were to use the term 'screen' in section level orders, I'd have to explain it every bloody time. Troops know what recce is, and the more experienced ones instinctively know what it more fully comprises and what the implied higher intent is. Troops below PLQ level simply have not been taught task verbs, and by that point the specific task verbs will have been broken down into section, det, or element level groupings and tasks anyway.

 

[54/102 CEF]

US MSN Verbs = pretty close to Canadian

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-90/appb.htm

Will assist you to see what the "effect" does

More here http://www.thelightningpress.com/smartbooks/operations/adobe/AODS4-2%20Movement%20&%20Maneuver%20sample.pdf

See p 10 of 22

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

If your mission statement is understood by your subordinates at 0330 hrs then it is a good mission statement regardless of the verbs used. If your orders ended at that point but your 2IC could take your map and execute with nothing but the mission statement then its even better.

 

[vonGarvin]

If your mission statement is understood by your subordinates at 0330 hrs then it is a good mission statement regardless of the verbs used. If your orders ended at that point but your 2IC could take your map and execute with nothing but the mission statement then its even better.

This is true; however, for course (I know, I know....) remember the "magic list" and give the DS what they want. But it's MUCH more important that your subordinates understand your intent and their role in it.

 

[brihard]

This is true; however, for course (I know, I know....) remember the "magic list" and give the DS what they want. But it's MUCH more important that your subordinates understand your intent and their role in it.

Yeah, fortunately course isn't a concern. I've just casually wondered what an Officially Proper mission task very for a recce would be.

Thanks for the other links, folks. Some interesting reading in some of those.

 

[dangerboy]

I

This, to me, makes more sense.  I just talked about this with BulletMagnet on other means.  The questions was raised: 

How do steps 8 and 9 of Battle Procedure - prepare and conduct a recce - apply to recce patrols?

They're skipped, obviously.  You can't conduct a recce in support of your recce patrol.

The implication, then, is that Battle Procedure wasn't built around section/det level tasks.  It looks like it's just been adapted to that level for teaching purposes.

For a recce patrol steps 8 and 9 of battle procedure: prepare and conduct a recce can be something as simple as going up the the FDL and checking out the position that you are entering and exiting your trench system and maybe going out through the gap in the wire to a forward OP and seeing what the ground looks like for your first leg.  It does not have to be anything elaborate.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Brihard,

I am not DS, nor do I work at Doctrine. I do sometimes use mission statements  like "Recce Sqn will conduct a zone reconnaissance between SMALL CAT and BIG DOG by xxxx hrs in order to..." I certainly use tasks that include "conduct zone recce" or "conduct area recce vicinity Grid 1234 to determine the presence of an enemy platoon position."

I will use the Ground Manoeuvre Reconnaissance terms that fit the key task. I use these in my own Groupings and Tasks, and from the backbriefs I get from the Troop Leaders/Platoon Commanders use things like "conduct a route recce of DIAMOND Route..." as their mission statements.

"Screen" can work and I do indeed use it if my mission analysis leads me there, but it can leave the troops wondering what is really meant. By using the words "point recce, zone recce, area recce, route recce etc" in the mission statement the troops know exactly what the mission is and a whole bunch of meaningful implied tasks fall out. If I tell you to screen a route you might wonder what I meant. If I task you to conduct a route recce you will know what I want done.

I also use Recce as a mission verb sometimes. The NATO AAP-6 publication has Reconnaissance as "a mission undertaken to obtain by visual observation or other detection methods, information..." I might use a mission statement like "Recce Sqn will recce in zone between SMALL CAT and BIG DOG..."

All that being said, if you are on course go with what the DS use. What I wrote above is simply how I roll and not offical.

Cheers

 

[54/102 CEF]

Staff College links to MSN Verbs http://lfdts.army.mil.ca/soh/Main_e.htm

Look under "planning" or here http://lfdts.army.mil.ca/soh/SOH_Content/VerbsMainPage.htm

Lots of stuff for the keen

 

[vonGarvin]

As an aside, the reason why we have mission verbs with definitions, etc, is for one essential element of mission command: understanding.  These terms provide a common language that leaves no ambiguity.  At the section level, if you say "We're gonna go scope out that bridge and see what's there so the Balloon Commander reach the company line of departure", and your section knows what they are going to do (combined with Concept of Ops, Groups and Tasks, etc), then you're golden.

If you work in a multinational environment, say part of an alliance with agreed terms and agreed definitions, and suppose that one of the sub-units for which you are writing orders is not Canadian, then stick to doctrine (that's from personal experience).  As well, if orders are issued electronically, or by radio, then stick to doctrine.  Keep in mind, that doctrine is a guide, and is not dogma.


(As a further aside, consider this fable from the Good Old Days of the Cold War.  A US Corps Commander was issuing orders to his divisional commanders, one of whom was the commander of a Bundeswehr division, attached to the US Corps.  In his concluding statements, he said something along the lines of," Now remember, gentlemen, when developing your plans, don't overlook the river."  When the Corps Commander came back, the US division had indeed included the river in question into its defence plan.  The Corps Commander was pleased.  Going to the German Division's position, he was quite upset: they were nowhere near the river.  The German division commander was confused, and said "But, Herr General, you told me to not look over the river."  It's all about understanding.)

 

[higgs]

From my understanding, the mission statement utilizes a mission verb, while the commander's plan to execute that verb is captured in his/her intent.

eg.
-----
MISSION

1 Tp will SCREEN between SMALL CAT and BIG DOG IOT xxxx NLT xxxx

EXECUTION
CONCEPT OF OPS
INTENT

My intent is to conduct a zone reconnaissance between SMALL CAT and BIG DOG with two Ptrls ....
-----

In this way subordinates can formulate their own plans, if necessary using only the mission statement, as the verbs have clear definitions.

11

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Multi-national ops wonderful opportunities for misunderstanding. I note that my US fellows saw much different implied tasks in a simple Screen than a Canadian would. In some situations it is often best to stick to NATO AAPs and such.

I pulled out an FMP on the range today from our last BG ex and went through my scribbled orders. I often used "Screen" as a mission verb for the Sqn when we were moving in relation to the supported unit with the purpose of preventing them getting surprised by the enemy. I used Screen because we were tasked to find enemy positions in front of the advancing BG and were not tasked to find everything out about the zone in front.  In my concept of operations I would indeed specify the end-state and method for that screen. My tasks to Troops/Platoons were not always "screen" in those cases, however, as they sometimes had tasks that had more detail as part of the Sqn plan. The Troop missions might not, therefore, have been Screen - but they could have been!

For laughs I also pulled out B-GL-334-001/FP-001 Standing Operating Procedures for Land Operations which was issued by DAD in 2007. It includes TAM 102 for Orders Formats, which is in turn based on a STANAG. It mentions under Mission Statement construction that:

"Some types of tactical operations are often ordered by a mission statement that does not include an immediate effect or specify the object of the order. These are important special cases that are regarded as a special category: they do not break the doctrinal principles for mission statements, because the task is clearly described by the doctrine for the type of operation. These orders can take the form "conduct (type of operation) in order to (purpose).""

The TAM then goes on to list the many Recce tasks that do not fit the neat mission verb list which can be used with "conduct". I take from that that it is OK doctrinally to use "conduct."

In any case, as has been said by all as long as your boss is happy with your backbrief and your troops understand your orders you are gold! Sometimes your plan might even work!

Cheers

 

[Fusaki]

For laughs I also pulled out B-GL-334-001/FP-001 Standing Operating Procedures for Land Operations which was issued by DAD in 2007. It includes TAM 102 for Orders Formats, which is in turn based on a STANAG. It mentions under Mission Statement construction that:

"Some types of tactical operations are often ordered by a mission statement that does not include an immediate effect or specify the object of the order. These are important special cases that are regarded as a special category: they do not break the doctrinal principles for mission statements, because the task is clearly described by the doctrine for the type of operation. These orders can take the form "conduct (type of operation) in order to (purpose).""

The TAM then goes on to list the many Recce tasks that do not fit the neat mission verb list which can be used with "conduct". I take from that that it is OK doctrinally to use "conduct."

In any case, as has been said by all as long as your boss is happy with your backbrief and your troops understand your orders you are gold! Sometimes your plan might even work!

Cheers

OMG you just crossed the streams!!

I just had to look it up myself. 
armyapp.dnd.ca/ael/pubs/B-GL-331-002-FP-001.pdf

Apparently you can say "11 will conduct a raid..." 

In-friggin-sane.

From  B-GL-331-002/FP-001,  Appendix 9 to Annex A:

11. Some tactical operations can be ordered by a mission statement that does not include an immediate effect or specify the object of the order. These are important special cases that do not break the doctrinal principles for mission statements, because the task is clearly described by the doctrine for the type of operation. These orders take the form "conduct [type of operation] in order to [purpose]". Note that in some cases the imperative is less clumsy, e.g. "withdraw in order to avoid decisive engagement". Nevertheless, the types of tactical tasks that are often ordered using “conduct” in this way are:
a.    Area Reconnaissance;
b.    Deception;
c.    Route Reconnaissance;
d.    Link-Up;
e.    Surveillance;
f.    Relief of Encircled Force;
g.    Screen;
h.    Relief in Place;
i.    Guard;
j. Forward Passage of Lines;
k. Cover;
l. Rearward Passage of Lines;
m. Advance to Contact;
n. Withdrawal;
o. Raid;
p. Retirement;
q. Spoiling Attack;
r. March.