# A Good Simple "Mission Analysis" Template



## opcougar

Just wondering if someone has or knows where to find a well put together template of the steps to writing a mission analysis statement? I am not asking about battle procedure steps, just mission analysis  

Thx


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Mission Analysis

- Superior Commander's intent
- Higher Commander's concept of operations
- Assigned tasks ( the critical one will help to formulate the mission statement)
- Implied tasks
- Constraints (resources, time and space, etc)
- Has the situation changed?
- Clarification (if required)
- Mission statement (2-part, with the msn verb linked to the higher purpose)


----------



## vonGarvin

opcougar said:
			
		

> Just wondering if someone has or knows where to find a well put together template of the steps to writing a mission analysis statement? I am not asking about battle procedure steps, just mission analysis
> 
> Thx





			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Mission Analysis
> 
> - Superior Commander's intent
> - Higher Commander's concept of operations
> - Assigned tasks ( the critical one will help to formulate the mission statement)
> - Implied tasks
> - Constraints (resources, time and space, etc)
> - Has the situation changed?
> - Clarification (if required)
> - Mission statement (2-part, with the msn verb linked to the higher purpose)


To amplify what NFLD Sapper wrote up in here, because he has it, I'll just make some points.
First, I personally find the best way to do this is on a white board, where you can scribble stuff down.  Second, from each step NFLD Sapper wrote above, you should do your deductions to a point where you either have a task (write it down!) or it's not relevant to you (no longer consider it).
When you look "two up" at the Superior Commander's Intent (just his intent statement), pick out any RELEVANT details.  Remember, you have yet to read his mission statement.  But that's ok.
From the "one up" to the Higher Commander, look at the whole Concept of Ops (Intent, Scheme of Manoeuvre, Main Effort, End State), same as above.  
The assigned tasks are simple (from groups and tasks), but the Implied tasks are a bit harder.  These are the ones that you can pull out from the deductions.
Here's one thing that isn't really in the Mission Analysis: ask yourself what is my "KEY" task.  What is the one thing that you must do in order to meet your higher commander's main effort or end state?  What is the one thing that must be done?  Nine times out of ten, this is your Mission.

Now, always ask "has the situation changed?" throughout the battle procedure or Operation Planning process.  If the answer is "yes" and "My plan is therefore no longer valid", go back to step one.  After you clarify with higher, naturally ;D

As for the mission statement, make them clear and concise, using NATO mission verbs.  FYI: "Conduct" is not a mission verb.  For example "8 Platoon will conduct a raid at grid X in order to blah blah blah".  Use words like "Destroy", "Block", etc.  The statement is in the form "(unit) will (mission verb) (place) (time, either "not before" or "no later than") in order to (higher intent, I find using the higher commander's mission here is pretty safe, 9 times out of 10).
As an example:
"8 Platoon will DESTROY enemy section at QQ 467 898 NLT 1800 tonight in order to set the conditions to CLEAR route HEART" 
Assume that C Company's mission is to CLEAR route HEART for whatever reason, and that 8 platoon had the task to destroy an enemy section somewhere along that route.

Anyway, I've rambled enough.  I hope that this helps, and doesn't hinder


----------



## X-mo-1979

Technoviking said:
			
		

> To amplify what NFLD Sapper wrote up in here, because he has it, I'll just make some points.
> First, I personally find the best way to do this is on a white board, where you can scribble stuff down.  Second, from each step NFLD Sapper wrote above, you should do your deductions to a point where you either have a task (write it down!) or it's not relevant to you (no longer consider it).
> When you look "two up" at the Superior Commander's Intent (just his intent statement), pick out any RELEVANT details.  Remember, you have yet to read his mission statement.  But that's ok.
> From the "one up" to the Higher Commander, look at the whole Concept of Ops (Intent, Scheme of Manoeuvre, Main Effort, End State), same as above.
> The assigned tasks are simple (from groups and tasks), but the Implied tasks are a bit harder.  These are the ones that you can pull out from the deductions.
> Here's one thing that isn't really in the Mission Analysis: ask yourself what is my "KEY" task.  What is the one thing that you must do in order to meet your higher commander's main effort or end state?  What is the one thing that must be done?  Nine times out of ten, this is your Mission.
> 
> Now, always ask "has the situation changed?" throughout the battle procedure or Operation Planning process.  If the answer is "yes" and "My plan is therefore no longer valid", go back to step one.  After you clarify with higher, naturally ;D
> 
> As for the mission statement, make them clear and concise, using NATO mission verbs.  FYI: "Conduct" is not a mission verb.  For example "8 Platoon will conduct a raid at grid X in order to blah blah blah".  Use words like "Destroy", "Block", etc.  The statement is in the form "(unit) will (mission verb) (place) (time, either "not before" or "no later than") in order to (higher intent, I find using the higher commander's mission here is pretty safe, 9 times out of 10).
> As an example:
> "8 Platoon will DESTROY enemy section at QQ 467 898 NLT 1800 tonight in order to set the conditions to CLEAR route HEART"
> Assume that C Company's mission is to CLEAR route HEART for whatever reason, and that 8 platoon had the task to destroy an enemy section somewhere along that route.
> 
> Anyway, I've rambled enough.  I hope that this helps, and doesn't hinder



Jezze!I've been conducting hard knock/softknock/RAPZ for years!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

And further to technoviking the fol is a list of msn and task verbs (there could be more) :

to atk by fire position
to block
to breach
to bypass
to canalize
to clear
to contain
to counter-attack
to counter-atk by fire
to delay
to destroy
to disrupt
to fix
to follow and support
to follow and assume
to guard
to interdict
to isolate
to neutralize
to occupy
to penetrate
relief-in-place
to retain
retirement
to screen
to secure
to cover-security
to seize
to support by fire posn
to withdraw
to withdraw under pressure


----------



## PanaEng

PM me and I could send you one (word document) that we used recently. Based on one from CLFCSC.

It has all the info mentioned (except for the verbs - there is a pam for that) and lots of embedded notes to provide hints - as well as COA development.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## opcougar

Thx guys, really appreciate it! Can you believe that nowhere online had anything as easily broken down like you guys have here?

One more question though, where can someone find the 1up and 2up intents in the orders? I know where to find the tasks, constraints and the rest, but those 2 throw me a loop and I get them mixed up.


----------



## vonGarvin

opcougar said:
			
		

> Thx guys, really appreciate it! Can you believe that nowhere online had anything as easily broken down like you guys have here?
> 
> One more question though, where can someone find the 1up and 2up intents in the orders? I know where to find the tasks, constraints and the rest, but those 2 throw me a loop and I get them mixed up.


When you receive orders, you will your Superior Commander's Intent in your boss' "Higher Commander's Concept of Operations".  Just focus on the "Intent" part.  Then, under your commander's Concept of Operations, that is your "Higher Commander's Concept of Operations". 
For example.  Assume you are commander of M Coy, 3 RCR.  You are part of 2 CMBG.  CO 3 RCR issues you an order.  It will be in the "SMESC" format.  It should say "Comd 2 CMBG Concept of Operations" under "Situation Friendly".  In that part, find the "Intent" part.  Then, after your CO's mission statement will follow his concept of operations.  So, when you as OC M Coy conduct your mission analysis, Comd 2 CMBG is your superior Commander, and CO 3 RCR is your higher commander.

I hope this helps.


----------



## Fusaki

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Mission Analysis
> 
> - Superior Commander's intent
> - Higher Commander's concept of operations
> - Assigned tasks ( the critical one will help to formulate the mission statement)
> - Implied tasks
> - Constraints (resources, time and space, etc)
> - Has the situation changed?
> - Clarification (if required)
> - Mission statement (2-part, with the msn verb linked to the higher purpose)



In the PLQ Refresher Package it states that Mission Analysis is done by answering the following four questions:

1. What is the intention of my commanders and what is my role in the overall plan?

2.  What do I have to achieve or what essential tasks must I perform to carry out the mission?

3.  What freedom of action do I have and are there any constraints?

4.  The tactical situation has changed in principle and would the company commander have assigned the same tasks if he had been aware of these changes?

I don't completely understand the relationship between the "Four Questions of Mission Analysis" I have in the Refresher Package and the list that NFLD Sapper has posted here.  I see the similarities, of course, but I'm curious to know if his list is an elaboration of my questions or if my questions are just an interpretation of his list.  Why does my list not explicitly say "Figure out what the mission statement is" ?  What is "the official" description of mission analysis?

I've been working under the impression that "if you answer these four questions you will have conducted your Mission Analysis".  After reading this thread, there seems to be much more to this particular step of battle procedure than I had previously thought.

Thanks!


----------



## vonGarvin

Wonderbread:
You are closer than you think to understanding it.  Allow me to illustrate.  See the following.  The stuff in *bold* is the four questions you have, and below each is from NFLD Sapper's post.  They are essentially saying the same thing:



*What is the intention of my commanders and what is my role in the overall plan?*
-	Superior Commander's intent
-	Higher Commander's concept of operations
*What do I have to achieve or what essential tasks must I perform to carry out the mission?*
- Assigned tasks ( the critical one will help to formulate the mission statement)
- Implied tasks
*What freedom of action do I have and are there any constraints?*
- Constraints (resources, time and space, etc)
*The tactical situation has changed in principle and would the company commander have assigned the same tasks if he had been aware of these changes?*- Has the situation changed?
- Clarification (if required)
-Mission statement (2-part, with the msn verb linked to the higher purpose)

Now, the following is the template from the CFLCSC in Kingston.  It should perhaps help un-muddy the waters a bit.  It was created to assist staff officers to complete and understand the Mission Analysis.  You are correct when you say:


> After reading this thread, there seems to be much more to this particular step of battle procedure than I had previously thought.


If you get the Mission Analysis correct, you are well on your way.  If you bugger it up, chances are you will miss what tasks you must complete and perhaps even get the wrong mission statement.  I think missing tasks (implied, especially) is the most critical.  Anyway, I hope that this helps.




> 1.	ASSUMPTIONS.  Assumptions are suppositions about the current and future situation that are assumed to be facts.  List your assumptions.
> a.	To avoid unnecessary speculation, assumptions made by Higher HQs are considered to be facts unless otherwise directed.  The Higher HQ is responsible to advise lower HQ when Higher Assumptions are no longer valid.
> b.	Your assumptions must pass the test of necessity and viability.  Necessity – are they absolutely essential to allow you to continue planning.  If planning could continue without a particular assumption, then it fails the necessity test.   Viability – is the assumption likely to be true?  Assuming that you would get sufficient helicopters to lift a battalion, when there are clearly not that many helicopters available to you, is an example of an assumption that is not viable.
> c.	Your Higher HQ should be advised of your assumptions.  In some cases, they may approve or reject them.
> d.	Assumptions should be continuously re-evaluated and, when applying the OPP (*TECHNOVIKING NOTE: "OPP" stands for "Operation Planning Process", which is similar to Battle Procedure, but employed by brigade and higher formations for collaborative planning*), should be highlighted in the Information and Decision Briefs.
> 2.	SUPERIOR COMMANDER’S INTENT.  While you may cut and paste the text directly from your Superior (or two-up) Commander’s Mission Analysis or Order, you should also consider your role in the Superior Commander’s plan.  How must your actions directly support this intent?  It may form the unifying purpose of your Mission Statement.  Mission Analysis is a thorough analysis of the Superior and Higher Orders to ensure complete understanding of the problem. It is a cognitive process that may be completed solely by a Commander or through a brainstorming session with advisors and staff.  The aim of the Mission Analysis is to determine the nature of the problem and to confirm results that must be achieved.  Analysis may indicate that the mission cannot be achieved.
> a.	Intent.
> (1)	Deductions.
> 3.	HIGHER COMMANDER’S CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS.  Again, while you may simply cut and paste the text directly from your Higher (or one-up) Commander’s Mission Analysis or Order, you should consider your role in the Higher Commander’s plan.  This will likely also provide your unifying purpose in your Mission Statement.
> a.	Intent.
> (1)	Deductions.
> b.	Scheme of Manoeuvre.
> (1)	Deductions.
> c.	Main Effort.
> (1)	Deductions.
> d.	End-State.
> (1)	Deductions.
> 4.	ASSIGNED TASKS.  Normally copied directly from the Execution paragraph of the Higher Order.  These are the explicitly stated tasks for your unit or formation.
> a.	Task.
> (1)	Deductions.
> b.	Task.
> (1)	Deductions.
> 5.	IMPLIED TASKS.  Implied tasks are other activities that must be carried out in order to achieve the mission, including the requirement to support the Superior or Higher Commander’s Main Effort.  They are normally derived from analysis of the Superior Commander’s Intent and the Higher Commander’s Concept of Operations.  In general, only those tasks that require the allocation of resources should be listed to avoid listing motherhood or SOP tasks.  Inherent, routine or SOP tasks should not be included.  A logical examination or comparison of the Assigned and Implied tasks should lead to an initial deduction of the critical activity or task that must be accomplished to achieve the mission.  This is an Essential Task that may end up being your Mission or your Main Effort.
> a.	Task.
> (1)	Deduction.
> b.	Task.
> (1)	Deduction.
> 6.	CONSTRAINTS AND RESTRAINTS.  Constraints are events that restrict your freedom of action and are normally stated as a requirement to do something (ie. maintain a Reserve of a particular size).  Restraints are prohibitions on actions and are normally stated as something that you cannot do (ie. no use of indirect fires in built-up areas).  As Constraints and Restraints are commonly confused, as many Constraints can simply be re-worded as a Restraint, they are often simply referred to as Limitations.  Limitations on force organization, manoeuvre, Rules of Engagement (ROE) and time are examples of Constraints or Restraints.  They can be simply stated as “What must I do?” or “What can I not do?”.  It is also important to noted “When do I need to decide to do something?”.
> a.	Constraint. (What must I do?)
> (1)	Deduction.
> b.	Constraint.
> (1)	Deduction.
> c.	Restraint.  (What can I not do?)
> (1)	Deduction.
> d.	Restraint.
> (1)	Deduction.
> 7.	CHANGES IN THE SITUATION.  You should list elements of the current or future situation that, if changed, may result in one of the following.  While initially completing you Mission Analysis, you may speculate on issues that may be listed here.  Additionally, if the situation changes at any time (while you are planning or during execution of your plan), you should re-visit this section of your Mission Analysis
> a.	Mission confirmed and Plan (once you have completed your Estimate or OPP) is still valid.
> b.	Mission confirmed, but plan will have to be modified to deal with the change in the situation.
> c.	Mission no longer valid or achievable.  In this case, you would have to start Mission Analysis again.
> d.	Some examples of items that you may list here are:
> (1)	The flanking unit that was to secure your RIGHT FLANK is no longer combat effective.
> (2)	Enemy exploitation forces have been launched early (when your Mission Analysis was based on your unit or formation defending against first echelon enemy forces).
> 8.	POINTS FOR CLARIFICATION.  List points that you have discovered in your analysis that you must clarify with your Higher Commander.
> 9.	MISSION.  Insert your mission statement here  Refer to the SOH section on Mission Statements and Mission Verbs.  Your Mission statement must include a task (the what?) and purpose (the why?):


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Mission Analysis can be a simple and effective tool. It is only worth anything if it leads to deductions that result in some action.

A good mission analysis should kick-out your Mission Statement as well as a good chunk of your Situation Friendly paragraph. If you are in a rush you can scribe the higher intent bits right into your orders as you draft them. The tasks (assigned or implied) that fall out of mission analysis but do not become the Mission Statement can still form the basis of your plan and perhaps your tasks for your subordinates. At the end of mission analysis you should have a good understanding of the plan, your part in it and why the plan was concocted in the first place. The first chunk of your orders can also be written as well. 

Knowing the "why" of the plan arms you to seize opportunties when they arise, and passing this on to your subordinates gives them the same ability.


----------



## Fusaki

Thanks guys,

I think I've got a decent grip on Mission Analysis.  I've come to acquire some other info that also helped me to understand this, but at the same time muddied the waters a bit more.

In this other info, Mission Analysis is the first step of the Estimate of the Situation:

1) Mission Analysis

2) Evaluate factors

3) Consideration of COA

4) Comd's decision

5) Development of the plan

Would I be right to assume that the Estimate happens simultaneously with Steps 4 to 11 of Battle Procedure?

Also, what specifically is the difference between an Estimate and a Combat Estimate?  I can guess that a Combat Estimate is used by troops in the field, but greater clarification would be appreciated.

I have a suspicion that by trying to compare The Estimate with Battle Procedure I'm attempting to cram a higher level (Battlegroup or TF) procedure into a lower level (Platoon) process.  For learning about Battle Procedure in a Platoon context, should I be looking at the Combat Estimate instead?

Thanks again!


----------



## PanaEng

The difference is the level of detail that goes in there - which is dependent on the amount of time you have and the coordination required. 
At a BG level each of the element Comd would be developing their own estimate and coord with each other in order to develop a comprehensive task list and resources for accomplishing the intent. At this level it could be done weeks in advance. 
At the platoon level you may just get a couple of days notice or less, but then the interactions with other elements are simpler, your individual mission is well defined and the resources required are pretty much what you have already.
The process stays the same whether you are commanding a sect, pl, eng troop, tank troop, battery, coy or sqn - its the level of detail and the number of blanks that have to be filled in.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## ThainC

The Cbt Est is a tool used for making decisions. It can be short, or it can be VERY lengthy (20+ pages, even at the Pl level).

At it's shortest, it can consist of merely a Courses of Action selection phase using COPPED to pick a COA during a hasty attack. At it's longest, it can be planned out for some time prior for a deliberate attack.

Your Msn Analysis is an entirely different beast, but is also the first step of an Estimate.

If you want, I've a number of documents that I can toss your way. Ranging from Hasty Atk Orders which you'll see a quick estimate in, to full out 20+ page Estimates. Also, I've a good 1 page Msn Analysis proforma you can use.

I've got a wee bit of experience with these... TEWT after TEWT with little to no sleep... You'd be SURPRISED what deductions you eventually start to come up with.


----------



## opcougar

ThainC said:
			
		

> The Cbt Est is a tool used for making decisions. It can be short, or it can be VERY lengthy (20+ pages, even at the Pl level).
> 
> At it's shortest, it can consist of merely a Courses of Action selection phase using COPPED to pick a COA during a hasty attack. At it's longest, it can be planned out for some time prior for a deliberate attack.
> 
> Your Msn Analysis is an entirely different beast, but is also the first step of an Estimate.
> 
> If you want, I've a number of documents that I can toss your way. Ranging from Hasty Atk Orders which you'll see a quick estimate in, to full out 20+ page Estimates. Also, I've a good 1 page Msn Analysis proforma you can use.
> 
> I've got a wee bit of experience with these... TEWT after TEWT with little to no sleep... You'd be SURPRISED what deductions you eventually start to come up with.



Thain....I'll love to have that 1 page MSN analysis template if you don't mind please?

Also if anyone has a good template for the 15 step battle procedure, I'll really appreciate it if you can toss it my way. I am in search of the PERFECT template that simplifies things and straight to the point without any tediousness.

Also for those that have done Recces.....when you recce a site to setup an equipment or something, what are the typical FACTORS on your list for coming up with a COA matrix/

Cheers


----------



## mariomike

opcougar said:
			
		

> Also if anyone has a good template for the 15 step battle procedure, I'll really appreciate it if you can toss it my way.



1-Receive warning order
2-Conduct quick map study
3-Prepare a quick time estimate
4-Issue initial warning order
5-Receive orders
6-Conduct mission analysis
7-Conduct detailed map study
8-Prepare detailed time estimate
9-Issue detailed warning order
10-Prepare a recce and coordination plan
11-Conduct recce and coordination
12-Complete detailed plan
13-Prepare and issue orders
14-Coordinate and supervise final preps
15-Supervise deployment and conduct the mission

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22815.0


----------



## Fusaki

mariomike, I think that Battleprocedure you've posted is outdated.

This one is less then a year old:

1) Recieve Warning Order
2) Conduct a quick time appreciation and map study
3) Move to and receive orders from higher
4) Conduct mission analysis
5) Issue initial warning order
6) Conduct a detailed time appreciation
7) Conduct a map study and prepare the plan
8 ) Prepare reconnaissance plan
9) Recce party conducts reconnaissance
10) Complete the remainder of the estimate and the plan
11) Issue a supplementary warning order
12) Prepare and issue orders
13) Co-ordinate activities and supervise rehearsals
14) Supervise deployment
15) Execute the mission
16) Conduct after action review


----------



## opcougar

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> mariomike, I think that Battleprocedure you've posted is outdated.
> 
> This one is less then a year old:
> 
> 1) Recieve Warning Order
> 2) Conduct a quick time appreciation and map study
> 3) Move to and receive orders from higher
> 4) Conduct mission analysis
> 5) Issue initial warning order
> 6) Conduct a detailed time appreciation
> 7) Conduct a map study and prepare the plan
> 8) Prepare reconnaissance plan
> 9) Recce party conducts reconnaissance
> 10) Complete the remainder of the estimate and the plan
> 11) Issue a supplementary warning order
> 12) Prepare and issue orders
> 13) Co-ordinate activities and supervise rehearsals
> 14) Supervise deployment
> 15) Execute the mission
> 16) Conduct after action review



Wonderbread is right. Those are the steps, with step 6 and 7 combined to give 15.

What I need though is a GOOd template that breaks it down with sub components, where you could just fill in the necessary info as you go.

Am aware of these steps

Thx


----------



## brihard

Could someone tell me in which PAM I'd find the full list of mission task verbs? In reading the above list, I can't pick out one that would be properly applied for a section or det level recce, which is one of the tasks I seem to get fairly often. Generally my mission statement is some variation of "11D will conduct a point recce of grid 1234 5678 in order to define enemy presence for further platoon ops" (the latter half varying depending on my orders of course). 'Conduct a point recce' doesn't look like a formal task verb; can someone tell me what I would properly use here? There's gotta be a specific task verb that better communicates the intent behind the conduct of the recce...


----------



## mariomike

This might not be what you are looking for, but I hope it helps:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27180/post-173000#msg173000


----------



## 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

Technoviking said:
			
		

> 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

Journeyman said:
			
		

> 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

Technoviking said:
			
		

> 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

Brihard said:
			
		

> '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

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 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

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> 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

Technoviking said:
			
		

> 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

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 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

Tango2Bravo said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## brihard

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> 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:




GLITCH IN THE MATRIX!  ;D


But damn, right on, thanks. This perfectly answers that.

So if C/S 2 got an order to 'destroy all EN in gr 43 85', C/S 21 might 'conduct a raid, IOT...'


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> OMG you just crossed the streams!!



I love it when a plan comes together!  ;D


----------

