Editor's Note

Platform operation, system support, tactical action and strategic support are the prominent features of modern warfare. As the end of the "big system supporting elite action", how to plan and organize combat action? How to distinguish and link battle planning and campaign level joint operation planning? A good answer to these questions and a clear understanding of the vague understanding of combat planning are of great benefit to improving the command literacy and command ability of commanders at all levels, especially those in the synthetic forces.

The battle planning is the operational planning and planning of the synthetic force commander and his command organ for the combat action, is the main work of the command activity, and is also the core content of command training. In recent years, important progress has been made in the theory and practice of joint combat planning in our military theater of operations, and the combat planning of synthetic forces should also be followed up simultaneously. The battle planning should not only innovate and develop in the joint operation planning of the docking theater and incorporate the latest achievements, but also seek breakthroughs in focusing on the actual situation of the synthetic forces and solving problems and puzzles.

Relationship between battle planning and command organization

With regard to the question of when to start the battle planning and who should implement it, some people hold the view that the command organization should be established before the battle planning. Without the command organization, there is no subject of the battle planning, and the battle planning cannot be carried out; There are also views that the command organization should be established after the battle planning. Without the battle planning, it is impossible to determine what kind of command organization needs to be established.

To solve the above doubts, we should start from the law of battle command. An important rule of battle command is that battle task determines battle organization, battle organization determines command organization, and command organization determines command relationship. As an important result of battle planning, combat organization cannot be determined without battle planning, and the command organization cannot be determined naturally. From this point of view, we should first carry out battle planning and then establish a command organization. In fact, the absence of a command structure does not affect the battle planning. Because, as defined in the 2011 version of Military Language, the main body of battle planning is "commanders and their command organs". In practice, it is usually the main commanders, chief of staff and necessary support forces. These personnel are often the backbone of the command organ to be established when they carry out battle planning. It should be pointed out that "command organ" is a "permanent organization with organizational command function in the military", which is a peacetime concept. The peacetime command organ of the composite force is not completely "peacetime and wartime integration, normal operation", and its coupling degree with wartime command organs cannot be equal, and wartime command organs need to be adjusted and established on the basis of peacetime command organs.

However, under some special circumstances, it is also possible to establish a command structure before conducting battle planning. For example, if there is a plan, since the composition of the command organization will not be greatly adjusted, the command organization can be established first according to the plan, and then the plan can be improved through battle planning. If necessary, the command organization can also be slightly adjusted, so that the command organization can enter the situation as soon as possible and become familiar with the situation throughout the whole process. For another example, when a synthetic force is directly converted from one battle to another, it is not possible to first convert from a wartime command organization to a peacetime command organization, but rather to plan the next battle by the command organization of the last battle, and then adjust and form a new command organization according to the planning results.

　　 The Controversy between Pre war Planning and In war Planning

With regard to the question of whether there is an in battle planning in the process of combat, some people believe that the combat planning is the operational planning and planning for the overall combat situation in the combat preparation stage, and there is no combat planning in the process of combat; There are also views that operational planning includes both pre war planning in the operational preparation stage and in war planning in the operational implementation process. Operational planning is an organization and command activity throughout the entire operational process.

These understandings seem reasonable, but they lack preconditions and are not rigorous enough. From the essence of operational planning, it is an operational planning and planning for the overall situation of the battle, an overall design for the battle under the leadership of the commander, a scientific method to deal with the complexity of the battle, reflecting the decision-making thinking process from coarse to fine, and does not stipulate in which stage to implement itself. The operational planning is usually implemented in the operational preparation phase, which does not mean that there must be no operational planning in the operational implementation process. If the operation level is high, the scale is large, and the duration is long, especially if the operation is divided into several relatively independent stages, then there should be operational planning in the operation process, and fine operational planning and planning for the subsequent stages should be carried out in due time; However, if the level of operations is low, the scale is small, and the duration is short, especially with the accelerated pace of operations, the battlefield situation is complex and changeable, and the aircraft is fleeting, the planning, decision-making and command can no longer be carried out step by step. Instead, the procedures should be simplified to implement decisive command on the spot. Obviously, whether there is and needs to be planning in the process of combat needs to be analyzed according to the level, scale, duration and development of the combat situation, and cannot be generalized. It is better to return to the original function of operational planning as a method and means of command and decision-making than to regard operational planning as a procedure and work in a certain operational phase.

It can be seen from this that joint operations in theater, due to their high level, large scale, long duration, and distinct stages, can involve both pre war planning and in war planning. However, the combat of synthetic forces is carried out in a "short time and limited space", with a fast pace of battle and tight phase connection. There is usually no opportunity and necessity for planning in battle, and it is not advisable to advocate planning in battle. Therefore, commanders must be forced to improve the quality of battle planning in the battle preparation phase and improve the ability of command at the moment of battle implementation.

　　 Priorities of judging situations and understanding tasks

For a long time, our army usually organizes combat according to the procedures of understanding the task, judging the situation, making determination, and organizing cooperation. In recent years, the research on the theory of joint operations of our army has proposed to organize operational planning according to the steps of "judging the situation, understanding the task, putting forward ideas, formulating plans, and making plans". According to the 2011 version of Military Language, understanding tasks are also called understanding tasks. Therefore, some comrades are confused about whether to understand tasks first or judge the situation first; I don't know the task, who to fight with, where to fight, and how to judge the situation.

There is no doubt that understanding the combat task is the logical starting point of combat preparation at any time. In this sense, we should first understand the task and then judge the situation. The "five steps" of combat planning proposed in the theoretical study of our joint operations has a premise that we have "accepted and communicated the mission" in the start of combat planning stage, and we have made clear what the combat mission is. The "understanding mission" in the combat planning stage is no longer simply "understanding" the mission, but has added the meaning of refinement, decomposition and implementation. In fact, it is often not complicated to figure out what the combat task is. How to "break up and crush" the task and find the path and strategy to complete the task are the key and difficult points of the combat planning. In this sense, adding the step of "understanding the task" is actually a bridge between judging the situation and putting forward ideas. It is an innovative move to solve complex battle command problems and deepen the understanding of the law of battle command, which is exactly what was lacking in the past.

To solve the above confusion, it is essential to distinguish and define the concepts of understanding task and understanding task, understand what the task is, and determine the category for judging the situation; Understanding the task focuses on thinking about how to complete the task to lay the foundation for putting forward ideas. There is no doubt that the "five steps" of combat planning are scientific, and the combat planning of synthetic forces should be followed. However, it should be noted that the task of unit level combat is often relatively simple, without too much "understanding". You can continue to use the procedures of understanding the task, judging the situation, making decisions, organizing cooperation and so on to prepare for combat. Therefore, the basic procedures of our army's battle organization and the basic steps of theater joint operations to combat planning in the past are completely correct from their respective interpretations of their connotations, which reflect the basic logic of battle command activities. The key is to grasp their essence and scope of application.

　 Results of battle planning and planning

As for the result of combat planning, some people think that it is to "form the basic concept of combat"; There are also views that it should be extended to the preparation and optimal evaluation of operational plans; In recent years, the research on the theory of joint operations of our army has put forward that operational planning includes not only the preparation of plans, but also the formulation of plans. However, there are more arguments about what the result of battle planning is, and some think it should be consistent with the result of battle planning; Some people think that the planning of joint operations in theater has its particularity, and the battle planning cannot be "rough from top to bottom".

To determine the results of combat planning, there should be both theoretical basis and practical requirements. In theory, it makes sense that the combat planning package does not include the preparation of plans, but in practice, it is more beneficial to include the preparation of plans. First of all, the operational concept is often macro and rough. Only by transforming the operational concept into operational plan and refining it into operational plan can we truly "land", otherwise the operational concept cannot be put into practice. Some put forward that the combat concept should include the preparation and optimal evaluation of the plan, which may be derived from this, but it has not really "finished". In addition, the plan can be formulated to test the concept, improve the plan, realize the connection before and after the battle planning, directly lead the troops to take action, and ensure the quality and effectiveness of the battle planning from the procedure. Moreover, making plans as a necessary part of the commander's operational planning and clarifying the commander's rights and responsibilities can prevent individual commanders from being "hands off manager" when making plans, which forces the commander to take the main responsibility and play a leading role in the whole process of operational planning.

It can be seen that operational planning, including the formulation of plans, is not unique to the level of joint operations in the theater, but reflects the internal requirements of operational planning and deepens the understanding of the regularity of operational planning. The combat planning of synthetic forces should come down in one continuous line, and the combat plan should be more detailed, specific and operational, otherwise, the combat planning will be false, Lack of credibility and feasibility. Nevertheless, the basic principles of battle planning from rough to detailed and group decision-making cannot be changed, the main responsibilities of the main commanders to seek the overall situation and grasp major events cannot be changed, and the functional orientation of the command organ to assist decision-making and supervise the implementation cannot be changed. To give full play to the commander's leading role in the battle planning, we should be good at turning ideas into ideas, ideas into plans, and plans into plans, so that the battle plan can truly become the "road map" of victory.