.
There's a curious thing happening when I do thought experiments, trying to optimise things to the best of my knowledge, processing ability (and preferences):
Answers ends up being very concise, clear and elegant when I look at the macro level.
Answers often end up very detailed and non-standardised when I look at the micro level.
This is for the same problem, such as "What should have been done about German anti-tank challenges by early 1942?".
I noticed this pattern repeatedly.
- - - - -
This leads to a mystery: Which set of answers is actually the better one?
The micro set could be better because it's taking into account details
The macro set could be better because it's taking into account the big picture.
- - - - -
I do suspect that armed bureaucracies mostly apply the micro approach because top leadership rarely forces elegant, decisive decisions that fit the macro answer pattern. They delegate and lots of subordinates ponder about micro level problems, coming up with many detailed answers.
IMO we could look at macro level to devise answers, then take the micro level into account to see whether the answers are feasible. To look at the micro level for more options leads away from standardisation, elegance, simplicity and in the end - it (likely) leads away from efficiency.
This might be part of the answer to why armed bureaucracies fail to standardise vehicles, munitions and even training properly. It may thus in turn be part of the answer why armed bureaucracies have such very high costs.
S O
.
Principal–agent problem is hard, and any incomplete solution gets subverted in time. Randomization and selection (evolution) is likely the few proven way to deal with the issue but there is no known functional way to apply this to war.
ReplyDeleteIn the domain of war, thankfully almost all opponents is likely stuck with equally poorly aligned, dysfunctional system as well.
I don't think this is about principal-agent.
DeleteThis looks more like looking at different things leads to different answers and looking at details means you drift towards less standardisation, less versatility, more complicated answers.
I read an article that concluded that only very advance weapons combined with the very cheap ones , survived in Ukraine war. Nothing in between
ReplyDeleteNot much of anything "survives" there flawlessly.
DeleteHave a look at air defence as exmaple for the hypothesis:
crude ZSU-23-2 light AAA are again useful against any kind of cruise missile in daylight, but sometimes by just those
complex but old SAM systems fail against Iskander and particulalry the Russian systems got destroyed in huge quantities, but they proved useufl against cruise missiles, Ukraine even created FrankenSAM due to the usefulness
high end SAP-T, IRIS-T SLM and Patriot SAM batteries are cost-ineffective against cheap cruise missiles, but effective against all cruise missiles. Reportedly, Patriot PAC-3 also sometimes intercepted Iskanders. The French want us to believe SAMP/T did so as well.
I don't see how the middle failed.
Same with tanks; T-62, T-72 and T-90 seem to equally fail to do their job well.
Leopard 1, T-64, Leopard 2, Chally2 - again, some good reports, some losses, all failed to do the job they were designed for (breakthrough, exploitation, wear down hostile tank force in tank battles)
It is German nature haha.
ReplyDeleteThe macrolevel seeks legibility. The micro seeks effectiveness.