Why does your military organization suck?

[Kenjona]

Dear Authors,

I am a bit tired that something that has 1000s of years of history is constantly done wrong.

A Military is a heavily armed organized force that applies said force towards the interests of an organization.

To gain cohesiveness as a military.

It will!

• Train all of its personnel in the traditions and expectations of the military.
• Train to think as an organization (Team) working together. Not as individuals fighting against each other.
• They may train by having individuals and teams fight against each other, but they do not do that on a social level and it is much further along their “training arc”.
• Special Forces are not trained without going through 1 & 2 first. No matter how powerful the “Special Force” person is.

The reasons the above happens is

• A disorganized mob is of less value on a field of battle then a well-organized and controlled unit. Even if everyone in the organization has different weapons/powers.
• Without a proper organizational structure, you have people with weapons/power that will end up abusing them.
• They have weapons/powers and know how to use them; it is best to have them loyal to your organization then giving them reasons not to be.
  • Look up the “Generals Putsch” in regards to the French Foreign Legion.
  • Look up Wagner and its political shenanigans in Russia.
  • All independent Armed Security Forces in the US are under contract with the US Government and are under oversight by the US Government. But look up Blackwater>Xe Services>Academi for systemic issues that have cropped up.
  • Italian Mercenary Princes (Condottieri) of the late Medieval and Renaissance era are a good example of why most Nations dislike relying on independent Military organizations.

A Recruit to a military organization will first learn how to follow their rules and regulations. How to wear a uniform, how to salute and show respect to their peers and superiors. Not be dumped into a sink or swim situation in the name of teaching them how to fight. That should all come later in their training arc, as it were.

What they won’t be given, is access to weapons and/or trained in their powers before they have learned the above and have proven to be somewhat reliable.

 

[RepresentingDesire]

Too bad most don't care about such stuff or they would have done basic research which could lead to wrong conclusions but not by all. Or I'm just overestimating intelligence again.

 

[Hans.Trondheim]

A lot of authors writing fictitious militaries have:

1). Don't have an actual military background
2). Would only rely on available articles and people, if they ever do research
3). Think that writing about nurturing team spirit and military discipline is boring
4). They do have a military background, but is enamored with 'democratic principles' that they don't see/disdain the practicality of instilling military discipline, or
5). Living outside countries not like the US, whose military is more 'secretive' in their training and recruitment process.

You can also attach to 4 the trend in literature market where cases of writing too much about military stuff is often seen as 'glorifying fascism.' Perfect examples are Starship Troopers, Zipang and Attack on Titan. Hence, the less effort in writing the training and shaping up of literary militaries, making it seemingly 'wrong'/'soft.'

Not all, but a lot. Hence the 'wrongness' in the military procedures of the stories they write. Besides, not all readers would care for reality as long as the 'cool' factor is there.

 

[NineHeadHeavenDevouringSerpent]

This is pretty basic I'd say, and to some extent not standard across the globe. Many inland nations with no conflict have very perfunctory forces amounting to nothing more than processions.

Also, in a fictitious settings where magic/Qi is involved and its a world not yet connected like the modern world, is rife with battles day in and day out, flags changing with every season, one could see how a military force be a bit ruff and haphazard around the edges.

They themselves probably grew up in different dynasty or their parents did, the resources for training common men will be less, so they become more of a mercenary band that hold no formal initiation to the empire's ideals. With magic involved they might seem way more capable than they really are, but they lack any stringent discipline passed over from the academias.

This is why in some well written ones, the stark contrast between the royal forces and the border patrol is clearly discernible. Everyone romanticise the border patrol as this rugged, experienced and "real" soldiers, but in reality most of these men are townsfolk who do the bare minimum and have always resorted to calling reinforcements from the central forces/nodal battalions.

So yeah, actual military forces truly have discipline and skills of a professional but that doesn't mean there aren't any forces that fulfill the role even with lacking many of the basic stuff.

 

[PancakesWitch]

Not like it matters if a big strong monster immune to bullets stands in their way, they're dying anyways.

 

[Jocelyn_Uasal]

You can say it's a call out post for Fourth Wing, we get it

 

[BouncyCactus]

Well, army building is quite a niche category only the RTS folks like, and most don't give two craps about it. And even if they got a good military and army, without good strategies and tactics, it wouldn't matter much anyway (I'm looking at you GoT. What a disappointment it was).

But what gets me the most is the lack of support personnel that everyone seems to forget about. Only 10% of the modern US military is combat MOSs, and less than 20% would see direct combat, including engineers and medics. The legion of Rome conquered, but they don't march on an empty stomach, fight bare handed, and sleep in dirt hut (Well, they are also combat engineer too, but that only highlighted the important to logistic and supports)

 

[expentio]

I think it depends on the general circumstances. For example, modern armies have the issue that every idiot with a gun can do huge damage. Guerilla warfare is in modern times much more dangerous. A trained soldier in a sword and shield world would certainly fare far better, as they have the motions ingrained and possess the necessary fitness to take down most disorganized opponents. Add to this formation warfare and they have a huge advantage.
Yet if you have a modern army and take their equipment and possible advantage they won't fare much better than normal people, as their warfare is extremely equipment-dependent. Of course, a trained sniper will do better and veterans will have an advantage in the field, but by themselve they have limits. It's not quite the same as when things depended on physical abilities.
Then there might be fantasy worlds. Though, it's weird if the average adventurer is stronger than law and order enforcement and can take them by themselve.

 

[3guanoff]

Well, many present day and historical militaries were and are not-so-good.

As someone who did their time chewing on coffee grounds and tea leaves with a rumbling stomach in the cold with a sub-par coat, I can assure you that motivation among conscripts was at an all-time high! The great conditions inspired creative solutions to get seemingly more work done while working less. How do you get a tank to sparkle? Cleaning it is not the answer. Some sprayed on water mixed with a little oil will make it sparkle for a bit... until it dries. But it lasts long enough for your superior to nod.
Rust was painted over. Whenever possible, instead of working we would pretend to.
Did we receive enough training to be allowed near explosives and tanks? No! But we were and enough accidents happened. Corruption, embezzlement, and appalling conditions are as part of military history as is your well-disciplined, over-funded vision.

 

[ArlindoFrancisco]

Well, the only way the military is kind of all over the place is where they are being formed as they enter the conflict, so there can be a lot of situations where the organization as a whole will fail to meet those expectations but in time ajust and form in their own way.

But let's be real, most of the time that is not what is happening; they are already an established organization and just act like idiots.

The real problem that was even said in this post was the lack of support. There is no way these 200 dudes fighting don't have 2x or 3x of personal support supporting them with everything; you can make it the minimum, but they need to have it.

 

[cabbag3]

Well, army building is quite a niche category only the RTS folks like, and most don't give two craps about it. And even if they got a good military and army, without good strategies and tactics, it wouldn't matter much anyway (I'm looking at you GoT. What a disappointment it was).

But what gets me the most is the lack of support personnel that everyone seems to forget about. Only 10% of the modern US military is combat MOSs, and less than 20% would see direct combat, including engineers and medics. The legion of Rome conquered, but they don't march on an empty stomach, fight bare handed, and sleep in dirt hut (Well, they are also combat engineer too, but that only highlighted the important to logistic and supports)

This is a good summary on basic command and modern military.
As much as I like how cool tactics and strategies are portrayed in stories, in the end, battles are usually won by logistics which usually goes unnoticed.
I'm currently writing a story and I'm still undecided on how to go with the military's approach since it's partially about fantasy world incursion.

 

[RepresentingWrath]

Bruh.

 

[ACertainPassingUser]

Despite the urge to say "it depends on the audience", the average audience don't fully know how a military army is supossedly build and work. And let's not get started on logistic and supply.

Most audience here only cares about battle fantasy, power fantasy, or romance Fantasy here.

"Military stuff" is something those characters do to search for more power or more lover, and all of the details don't matter because everything can be solved with the magic of more power or more love, or just author brushing it off altogether.

As long the Hero/Heroines are happy, Main characters happy, Side character gor slightly improved, and Villains got their horribly unfair punishment for opposing the hero/heroines (but it's satisfying for the urges of revenge), the story is pretty much over.

 

[Ruti]

The reason why the military organizations are always awful in stories is because of plot. MC group can't be heros if the military does its job right, and when the MC group is in the military, they cant have character growth and platoon growth and conflict if the military does its job right. Only rarely do you see a properly organized military, where them being organized is important to the plot.

 

[CharlesEBrown]

For a formal, professional military this is correct - but some military organizations are militias which can have literally any level of organization.

 

[Assurbanipal_II]

Dear Authors,

I am a bit tired that something that has 1000s of years of history is constantly done wrong.

A Military is a heavily armed organized force that applies said force towards the interests of an organization.

To gain cohesiveness as a military.

It will!

• Train all of its personnel in the traditions and expectations of the military.
• Train to think as an organization (Team) working together. Not as individuals fighting against each other.
• They may train by having individuals and teams fight against each other, but they do not do that on a social level and it is much further along their “training arc”.
• Special Forces are not trained without going through 1 & 2 first. No matter how powerful the “Special Force” person is.

The reasons the above happens is

• A disorganized mob is of less value on a field of battle then a well-organized and controlled unit. Even if everyone in the organization has different weapons/powers.
• Without a proper organizational structure, you have people with weapons/power that will end up abusing them.
• They have weapons/powers and know how to use them; it is best to have them loyal to your organization then giving them reasons not to be.
  • Look up the “Generals Putsch” in regards to the French Foreign Legion.
  • Look up Wagner and its political shenanigans in Russia.
  • All independent Armed Security Forces in the US are under contract with the US Government and are under oversight by the US Government. But look up Blackwater>Xe Services>Academi for systemic issues that have cropped up.
  • Italian Mercenary Princes (Condottieri) of the late Medieval and Renaissance era are a good example of why most Nations dislike relying on independent Military organizations.

A Recruit to a military organization will first learn how to follow their rules and regulations. How to wear a uniform, how to salute and show respect to their peers and superiors. Not be dumped into a sink or swim situation in the name of teaching them how to fight. That should all come later in their training arc, as it were.

What they won’t be given, is access to weapons and/or trained in their powers before they have learned the above and have proven to be somewhat reliable.

Military science is a relatively recent phenomenon. With 1000s you go way too far back.

Transplanting concepts and ideas on times when they haven't been even invented or formalised is an error and fallacy. The same way war has changed the military has changed as both reflect the socio economic circumstances of their time and age.

 

[DeepWater]

Dear Authors,

I am a bit tired that something that has 1000s of years of history is constantly done wrong.

A Military is a heavily armed organized force that applies said force towards the interests of an organization.

To gain cohesiveness as a military.

It will!

• Train all of its personnel in the traditions and expectations of the military.
• Train to think as an organization (Team) working together. Not as individuals fighting against each other.
• They may train by having individuals and teams fight against each other, but they do not do that on a social level and it is much further along their “training arc”.
• Special Forces are not trained without going through 1 & 2 first. No matter how powerful the “Special Force” person is.

The reasons the above happens is

• A disorganized mob is of less value on a field of battle then a well-organized and controlled unit. Even if everyone in the organization has different weapons/powers.
• Without a proper organizational structure, you have people with weapons/power that will end up abusing them.
• They have weapons/powers and know how to use them; it is best to have them loyal to your organization then giving them reasons not to be.
  • Look up the “Generals Putsch” in regards to the French Foreign Legion.
  • Look up Wagner and its political shenanigans in Russia.
  • All independent Armed Security Forces in the US are under contract with the US Government and are under oversight by the US Government. But look up Blackwater>Xe Services>Academi for systemic issues that have cropped up.
  • Italian Mercenary Princes (Condottieri) of the late Medieval and Renaissance era are a good example of why most Nations dislike relying on independent Military organizations.

A Recruit to a military organization will first learn how to follow their rules and regulations. How to wear a uniform, how to salute and show respect to their peers and superiors. Not be dumped into a sink or swim situation in the name of teaching them how to fight. That should all come later in their training arc, as it were.

What they won’t be given, is access to weapons and/or trained in their powers before they have learned the above and have proven to be somewhat reliable.

I get what you are talking about, but it's important to note that militaries haven't always been as formal as they are today. Especially during the relatively peaceful medieval era, most countries relied on militias or mercenaries and not standing armies.

 

[Kenjona]

You can say it's a call out post for Fourth Wing, we get it

Fourth wing? I do not know that story, I think.

I get what you are talking about, but it's important to note that militaries haven't always been as formal as they are today. Especially during the relatively peaceful medieval era, most countries relied on militias or mercenaries and not standing armies.

Actually, yes they have been as formal, some worse than present day. We get the English word Decimation from the Roman military after all.

The Condottieri had some very formal divisions of labor, much of our rank structure comes from the medieval period and the condottieri. The military rank "Private" comes from those who were contracted to fight in a unit but did not have a "public office". Public Offices were those like Corporals/Caporale and so on, come from cabo de esquadra "Chief of a Squad" and would have responsibilities not only to lead a squad but interact with the public in some form. Or Captains/Capitaneus "Head of --" which came into regular usage in the mid 1500's.
Even in the Medieval period most military Officers served an apprenticeship before being allowed to be in charge of anything. Even the Nobility had to go through an apprenticeship before anyone would let them be in charge of anything but their own forces paid for out of their own pockets.

Military science is a relatively recent phenomenon. With 1000s you go way too far back.

Transplanting concepts and ideas on times when they haven't been even invented or formalised is an error and fallacy. The same way war has changed the military has changed as both reflect the socio economic circumstances of their time and age.

For writings Tacitus, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and others. From the Ancient Greeks, Japanese, Chinese, Indian (the Dhanurveda is the oldest military science work known) and onward would disagree with you. The study of Military Science and War has always had a formal background.

My issue is with Authors skipping the ideas behind a (Formal) military and its ability to train recruits. The Military can be as incompetent as the story needs to be. Go look up the Prussians prior to the 1800's.

If its a bunch of People getting together to fight some big bad. Ok great I have no issue.
But if its a formal Military organization with several decades of history, then I have issues. Not in its competency, it can be a failure of a force. No its in how it brings its new recruits into the fold and incorporate it in its system.

For a formal, professional military this is correct - but some military organizations are militias which can have literally any level of organization.

I agree This is Absolutely the truth. But even Militias have some form of training to bring the new recruits up to speed.

A lot of authors writing fictitious militaries have:

1). Don't have an actual military background
2). Would only rely on available articles and people, if they ever do research
3). Think that writing about nurturing team spirit and military discipline is boring
4). They do have a military background, but is enamored with 'democratic principles' that they don't see/disdain the practicality of instilling military discipline, or
5). Living outside countries not like the US, whose military is more 'secretive' in their training and recruitment process.

You can also attach to 4 the trend in literature market where cases of writing too much about military stuff is often seen as 'glorifying fascism.' Perfect examples are Starship Troopers, Zipang and Attack on Titan. Hence, the less effort in writing the training and shaping up of literary militaries, making it seemingly 'wrong'/'soft.'

Not all, but a lot. Hence the 'wrongness' in the military procedures of the stories they write. Besides, not all readers would care for reality as long as the 'cool' factor is there.

Yeah,
Hence a bit of my rant.

As an aside:
Starship Troopers was Heinlein's statement on his personal military views and the need for a strong military to fight communism. The movie version took his story and upped the Military/Fascism angle by a huge margin. Which is kind of funny since the book had one of the most equitable racial makeups in its cast. Such as Juan "Johnny" Rico, he was supposed to be of Filipino/Brazilian descent. But became a generic White guy in the movie. A military with a diverse racial makeup is generally not considered a fascist trait, if anything it tends to go against most ideals I have seen spouted over fascism.

 

[Snake99]

I will recommend some books to learn about the subject:

Carl von Clausewitz, On War (1832-34)
Sun-Tzu, The Art of War (ca 490 BCE)
Vegetius, De re militari
Sextus Julius Frontinus, The Strategemata
Polyaenus Tacticus
Maurice, Strategikon
Nicolo Machiavelli, The Art of War (1521)
The Prince (1522)
Discourses on Livy (1531)
Antoine Henry de Jomini, The Art of War (1839)
Basil Liddell Hart, Strategy: An Indirect Approach
Alfred Thayer Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power
Julian Corbett, Principles on Maritime Strategy (1911)
J.F.C. Fuller, Armament and History (1946)
Petar Paret, Makers of modern strategy from Machiavelli to the nuclear age
Martin van Creveld, Command in War

War chronicles:
Anabiases(Xenophon)
Anabiasis of Alexander
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War (400 BCE)
Julius Caesar, Commentaries (44 BCE)
Edward Shepherd Creasy, The Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World From Marathon to Waterloo

 

[QuercusMalus]

My military organization sucks because it's being actively sabotaged. 2 of the 3 commanders on the Eastern front turned traitor and threw their lot in with the Empire that they were positioned to guard against. Course, half the reason they turned is because their weapon supplies from HQ were cut off with the order to 'fend for themselves'. The General was actually unaware of this as one of his other subcommanders faked the communication and told him all three commands had rebelled, so he doesn't question the lack of communication (as the subcommander is in charge of the bases patrols and has his loyal guards kill any messengers/arrivals before they get within sight of the base). This was because the subcommander was an agent for the Empire and was sabotaging the defense on that front, plus it gave him more weapons to send West to defend against the other nation that was threatening to invade.