So military pilots are almost always officers (yeah yeah warrant officers I know don’t make a weird distinction tangent), so what happens if say a military pilot is shot down over enemy territory, a rescue squad made up of Enlisted men is sent to rescue him (Sergeants and PFCs I’m assuming) and when they get to him the Officer pilot goes “Okay I know you’ve been sent to rescue me but since I’m the ranking Officer here I DEMAND you help me go destroy the AA gun that shot me down to prevent others from getting shot down”
I was always under the impression despite the rank difference the Enlisted Rescuers are operating under a completely different chain of command and since their orders are a firm “Rescue and Extract” they have no obligation to help the Officer Pilot on his mission.
I remember I got into an argument with someone on Twitter about this like 5 years ago where they claimed that Rank always prevails and that the Enlisted Rescuers can be court martialed for “Failure to Obey Orders From A Superior Officer” or whatever it’s called specifically.
I’ve never served in the military but I’m pretty sure it’s what you said, that the enlisted men would just say, “Nuh-uh, we listen to our officer boss, not you. He didn’t tell us to go take out the AAA.”
Plus I 'd assume they could say they weren’t equipped to blow up AA positions anyway, and he’d have to call for extra help. And in the meantime, a sedative might be clinically necessary…
I don’t really see an SAR unit being sent out without an officer in charge, anyway.
Besides, the pilot may be an officer, but that doesn’t mean he has the training to take out an AA gun on foot. Pilots are taught to fly planes, not fight as infantry, and certainly not to command other infantry.
As long as they’re in communication with their own command, and performing orders issued by that command, that’s what they’re responsible for. Other chains of command can’t override those orders.
Imagine how chaotic military operations would be if it were otherwise. First brigade is operating in proximity to second brigade, each has individual but related missions. A battalion of second brigade gets in trouble and their commander (LTC) needs help, he starts pulling rank on company commanders (CPT) in first brigade. Now first brigade’s plan is in trouble because a rogue battalion commander in the other brigade has stripped elements for his own needs. It’s simply too unworkable to even imagine. Chain of command prevails when it’s intact, not rank.
Now if you have a group that’s become detached from their chain of command for whatever reason, and the operational situation changes, and they can’t get orders or guidance, then that may change things. Honestly I don’t know how it would work in a rescue situation, but when formations are destroyed or captured then the remnants need to contrive a new chain of command based on rank. One good example is in a POW camp. They are completely detached from their command, so they effectively become their own detachment. Their new mission is to resist and escape, and their commander is the ranking officer.
That was my thought, as someone with no military background - the rescue squad has orders that originate from on high - rescue… (Operating orders?) Their task is to fulfill those orders. Some random dude cannot override those orders. Their “go rescue” order may arrived to them from an NCO but it is part of a general duty assigned by a fairly high up officer, at the very least the commader of their base. This better be a general they’re rescuing if he tries to override those.
This was kinda the plot of Saving Private Ryan except it didn’t involve rank or demands; the rescuee simply declined to be rescued until his own mission (whether shooting war or allegorical) was fulfilled.
There are two basic types military authority. Command Authority is derived from your position in the chain of command. General Military Authority is derived mostly by rank.
Under General Military Authority a higher ranking person has the obligation to act when they see a soldier acting improperly regardless of what chain of command they are in. It does not give you the authority to make someone abandon the mission they were ordered to perform. You can’t just grab a soldier and make them do things because you outrank them. They have a chain of command and orders they have to obey.
I have sometimes wondered about a similar scenario. Suppose a high-ranking general is flying on an Air Force aircraft. The general goes to the cockpit and starts pushing buttons and saying things like, “What does this button do?” Then he tells the pilot to see if the aircraft can fly under a bridge. Nonetheless, his behavior doesn’t really suggest that he has lost his mind or is going insane, Can the pilot, as the person in charge of the aircraft, order the out-ranking general to shut up, go to his seat, and put his seatbelt on?
It looks like Loach may have answered my question while I was typing.
In an aircraft the one guy is called the PIC “ Pilot In Command.” That’s not a euphemism. While flying they are in command of everything and everyone in that aircraft.
I assume too that’s at that point equivalent to captain on a vessel?
But this too goes back to the basic chain of operating orders. The pilot is given the commad of the aircraft with the orders - understood or not - to operate it, keep it safe and intact (along with the passengers) etc. Flying under bridges with an aircraft big enough for the passengers to wander around does not seem like the optimal course of action when trying to keep everything safe and intact. Whereas “divert 20 miles that way for a minute so we can see what the situation is on the ground” may or may not be a safe order depending on what’s happening on the ground.
I wasn’t in the Navy but I’m assuming it’s the same. I was in the Army with about 1/3 of my time in Aviation.
If the higher ranking person in the back of the aircraft is just a passenger, the pilot is going to continue with his mission as planned. The passenger is just cargo that should keep his mouth shut. If the higher ranking officer is part of the pilot’s unit and is flying for operational reasons he can tell the pilot where to go. The pilot has control of how to get there.
I was in an Apache unit for a time. At that time the doctrine was the battalion commander and battalion executive officer (both current qualified pilots) flew in the back of command and control Blackhawks during battle. They certainly could change things up and order the pilot away from the planned course but mostly they were concerned with the forward units and left the flying to the pilot.
There’s a reason why officers (and preferably, enlisted as well) should know not only what their own mission is, but also what the mission of the unit next to them is, and what the overall purpose of their missions is. Take your example. What if the second brigade’s mission is to take out artillery threatening the first brigade, and if they don’t, the first brigade will be slaughtered? In that case, a battalion commander from the second brigade would be right to seize control of a company or two from the first brigade, because otherwise, the first brigade’s mission is pointless. The whole point is to win the battle, not to succeed in your mission. The latter has to serve the former.
Of course, if everyone’s up to speed and trained properly, the first brigade officers will understand the situation and follow the “rogue” battalion commander’s orders willingly, so there shouldn’t be a problem.
I’d love to know what military tolerates battalion commanders going freelance and plucking off companies out from beneath another brigdade commander, but I can say in the US Army that anybody doing this behavior without command authority would be relieved of command immediately, probably broadcast over more than the command net.
Now if things got really bad, say the TOC is noncommunicative, and there is no apparent command authority, then some improvisation will be necessary. But as long as command is responsive, that kind of freelancing is simply unthinkable. It’s hard to imagine a realistic scenario where 2 brigade-sized task forces don’t have a higher command to coordinate these kinds of needs, not unless nukes are involved.
Mission command , also referred to as mission-type tactics , is a style of military command, which is derived from the Prussian-pioneered mission-type tactics doctrine, combines centralized intent with decentralized execution subsidiarity, and promotes freedom and speed of action, and initiative within defined constraints. Subordinates, understanding the commander’s intentions, their own missions, and the context of those missions, are told what effect they are to achieve and the reason that it needs to be achieved. Subordinates then decide within their delegated freedom of action how best to achieve their missions. Orders focus on providing intent, control measures, and objectives and allow for greater freedom of action by subordinate commanders.
Note that I said specifically that the junior officers went along with the other battalion willingly, based on their understanding of the mission and goal.
Well, yes, I was presuming that things had gone horribly wrong, as they always do at some point or another.
For comparison, in the Navy, an admiral will be on some ship or another, but whatever ship they’re on will still have some other officer as captain.
Back to the OP, the pilot also has orders from their chain of command. What if, when the rescuers get there, the pilot says “Well, thanks for showing up, but my orders made it very clear that it was essential that I destroy this target at any cost, and so I intend to continue on foot to make the best attempt I can at fulfilling my mission, even at the risk of my life”. Obviously, if that’s the case, then there was a lack of communication at the higher levels (if the mission was so essential, then the rescuers should have been informed of it, too), but lack of communications happens sometimes in war.
Just so we know that this is a Hollywood scenario. It’s not real life. In real life there isn’t a pilot that also has Delta Force training that can either bomb a target or take it out by Macgivering some munitions and attacking on foot. In real life the training they get is to escape and evade until rescued then get on the choppa.
Nothing about that applies here. That kind of autonomy doesn’t authorize a unit to pluck out elements of another command. Higher command allocates maneuver formations as long as there’s a higher command, end of story.
The collapse of a division command is not a thing that “always” goes wrong. It’s extremely rare, I could be wrong but I don’t think that’s happened since the Korean War. It’s hard to imagine that happening in modern times unless the division has literally been decapitated with a tactical nuke. That’s essentially what it would take for a brigade to go freelance and start absorbing sibling units.