Staff (military): Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (Levels) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
From the earliest days of conflict, leaders had '''staff''' assistants, if only to hand them the next rock to throw at the mammoth. As man's ability to kill grew, so did the need for assistance to leaders. Still, for centuries, a '''military staff''' was organized around an individual, rather than in a systematic way. | From the earliest days of conflict, leaders had '''staff''' assistants, if only to hand them the next rock to throw at the mammoth. As man's ability to kill grew, so did the need for assistance to leaders. Still, for centuries, a '''military staff''' was organized around an individual, rather than in a systematic way. | ||
[[Napoleon Bonaparte]] did not have a staff on the general model used by modern militaries, but was important in the transition between assistants to an individual and a modern staff. He had, for example, a Quartermaster-General concerned with [[logistics]]. He had [[aides]] that he trusted both to carry his orders to subordinate units, and return with an accurate assessment of the units' situation. His headquarters contained clerks, mapmakers, and other assistants. | [[Napoleon Bonaparte]] did not have a staff on the general model used by modern militaries, but was important in the transition between assistants to an individual and a modern staff. He had, for example, a Quartermaster-General concerned with [[logistics(military)|logistics]]. He had [[aides]] that he trusted both to carry his orders to subordinate units, and return with an accurate assessment of the units' situation. His headquarters contained clerks, mapmakers, and other assistants. | ||
Recognizable staff organization, which split planning and supervisory functions into reasonably well-defined functions, usually are attributed to the Prussians.<ref name=Goerlitz>{{citation | Recognizable staff organization, which split planning and supervisory functions into reasonably well-defined functions, usually are attributed to the Prussians.<ref name=Goerlitz>{{citation | ||
Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
An intelligence staff both produces analyses and other reports, and frequently has intelligence collection units reporting to it. | An intelligence staff both produces analyses and other reports, and frequently has intelligence collection units reporting to it. | ||
===G-3: Operations=== | ===G-3: Operations=== | ||
Responsible for unit, as opposed to individual training, and the mobilization and deployment of units for combat. Ground units frequently have a deputy for air support. | |||
===G-4: Logistics=== | ===G-4: Logistics=== | ||
===G-5: Plans, Policy, Civil Affairs=== | ===G-5: Plans, Policy, Civil Affairs=== |
Revision as of 15:19, 11 June 2008
From the earliest days of conflict, leaders had staff assistants, if only to hand them the next rock to throw at the mammoth. As man's ability to kill grew, so did the need for assistance to leaders. Still, for centuries, a military staff was organized around an individual, rather than in a systematic way.
Napoleon Bonaparte did not have a staff on the general model used by modern militaries, but was important in the transition between assistants to an individual and a modern staff. He had, for example, a Quartermaster-General concerned with logistics. He had aides that he trusted both to carry his orders to subordinate units, and return with an accurate assessment of the units' situation. His headquarters contained clerks, mapmakers, and other assistants.
Recognizable staff organization, which split planning and supervisory functions into reasonably well-defined functions, usually are attributed to the Prussians.[1] Their earliest staffs did not follow the current model, but began with a military historian that would record how things were done in a given conflict, so officers could study and avoid mistakes of the past. Current staffs still have a historical function, which sometimes is formalized as a center for "lessons learned", as with Australia, [2]Canada[3] and the United States.[4]
Staff leadership
General vs. special staff
Levels of staff
Subdivisions of a staff are usually identified by a letter and number. The letter indicates the level of organization with which the staff is associated. While the boundaries of a level may vary, common NATO levels are:
- S: Battalion through brigade
- G: Division through army; assumes a single military service
- J: Joint command, which can be multiservice, multinational, or both.
Traditional divisions of a general staff
G-1: Personnel and administration
This branch is responsible for tracking the number and status of personnel in the unit, replacing or augmenting manpower, individual training, awards and decorations, etc.
G-2: Intelligence
An intelligence staff both produces analyses and other reports, and frequently has intelligence collection units reporting to it.
G-3: Operations
Responsible for unit, as opposed to individual training, and the mobilization and deployment of units for combat. Ground units frequently have a deputy for air support.
G-4: Logistics
G-5: Plans, Policy, Civil Affairs
G-6: Communications-Electronics
Divisions without standardized numbers
References
- ↑ Goerlitz, Walter (1962), History of the German General Staff, 1657-1945, Praeger
- ↑ Australian Army, Welcome to the Centre for Army Lessons (CAL)
- ↑ Centre for Army Lessons Learned, Department of National Defence (Canada)
- ↑ Center for Army Lessons Learned, Combined Arms Center, United States Army