> But I'd argue (like modern armies do) the tradeoff is worth it, and the strategic level has more resources to overcome their friction than combat troops engaged in a fight.
I think the tradeoff is practically mandatory for modern armies. The high mobility they require just to avoid artillery strikes and engagements with armor makes top down command impossible to implement in a symmetric conflict.
I have heard that there is much less of this in the Russian army than in NATO countries' armies--and before that, less in Eastern European countries' armies. The Ukrainian army apparently had to be trained out of that (although IIUC, that training began soon after the fall of the Soviet Union).
I'd enjoy hearing any comments about this--true, false, true-but, etc.!
I think the tradeoff is practically mandatory for modern armies. The high mobility they require just to avoid artillery strikes and engagements with armor makes top down command impossible to implement in a symmetric conflict.