[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The best plan for them? It's to have no plan.

If there's no plan, you might as well curl up and die. There's always a plan. Whether it is well-articulated and well-executed, though, is another matter.

...American tactical ideas are simple...

...the character of the American is simple...

They simply make broad plans for combating enemy attacks against their fortified positions...

...Americans are unlike our troops, who can attack at night and bring about decisive results; instead, they simply use the night hours to better their preparations...

It's here that the Japanese made a fatal error in judgment, partly because of their different doctrine, and partly because of sheer arrogance.

The truth is that simple plans are the best, because they are easy to explain, easy to execute and, most importantly, easy to adapt on the fly.

I speak from personal experience: first as a gawky cadet planning and executing my first mission (major fail; mission plan was so complicated and garbled I couldn't even remember parts of it en route to objective) and subsequently, many years later, as an older, more experienced reservist officer (conduct 'O' group, give mission statement, identify key objectives, lay out plans of action, obtain buy in [critical]).

The non-commissioned ranks don't need the "bigger picture". They just need the objective and the timings, which an officer is supposed to provide. Smooth execution will depend on pre-rehearsed drills, but within the framework of the plan, there should be enough room for each soldier, or at the very least the section leaders, to exercise initiative. The mission is supposed to be carried out through familiar routines in the first place. If it doesn't even start that way, something is seriously wrong.

That's the ideal situation. How close any unit is to the ideal depends, of course, on individual personalities. American doctrine can't be very different.