When can an officer refuse an order by his superiors?

Question

How about this scenario. A lieutenant is ordered to take a group of 25 soldiers up a hill to take it....using nothing but small arms and with no other support. Problem is the hill is heavily defended by at least 100 enemy soldiers who are well dug in and have grenade launchers and heavy machine guns.
The lieutenant says to his superiors he needs more help. They tell him to get going... What are his options?

ok...what if he attempts to take the hill, and predictably his soldiers are cut down within minutes and he only has like 10 left, if he pulls back, can he be punished?

The hill is important as it controls a 5 mile perimeter and provides great observation post for the enemy.

Answer 1

The lieutenant is required to obey the order. The scenario you described is not that abstract of a possibility. While the lieutenants platoon is attacking from the front, the rest of the company might be trying a flank attack in a pincer move. They might also order an attack so the enemy sends reinforcements to that hill from another hill that the main attack is coming at. In short, the LT doesn't have the big picture, doesn't need to have the big picture, and can be tried in military court for failing to obey an order.

Answer 2

Based on your scenario he would have to obey that order.

He could refuse, but then they would relieve him of his command and then order the next highest ranking person to lead the attack. The best thing he could do is lead the attack himself and attempt to do a good job, and accomplish the objective the best he could and save as many of his men as possible.

If he refused that order the attack would still take place only he would be court martialed, and his troops would no longer have the benefit of his leadership in combat.

Willful disobedience of a lawful order in the face of the enemy is punishable by death last time I checked.

All that aside your scenario is unrealistic. Typically when conducting a frontal assault on a hill you want a 3 to 1 superiority in numbers. A hill such as you describe would be subjected to huge amounts of direct and indirect supporting fires or air support.

Ordering 25 people to conduct a frontal assault on a hill defended by 100 troops that are dug in is unrealistic, at least in daylight.

However if the LT. did get such an order then he would have to obey it.

Answer 3

Obey meaning get going or get a court martial. The only order which can be refused without being charged and court martialled regardless of rank is if the order you are given is illegal; illegal means against the rules established by the service or in the Geneva Convention. You can be ordered to charge it a hill held by 100 enemy by yourself and without using any weapons and that is a legal order and you either obey it or don't and risk being charged with disobedience of a direct order if the order is given by a commissioned officer or of a lawful order if it is given by a senior enlisted. xtyus3-The order to charge would still have to be followed-you could only refuse the second part of the order to take no prisoners; orders are sectional in that regard. Personal morality or thinking it is immoral is not a defense-the only exception which does not lead to a court martial is if the order is illegal.

Answer 4

It is Unanimous: It is a Legal Order and must be obeyed.
The assumption is that in a larger scale this is the best way to proceed and is expected to save lives.
Sure, sometimes this proves unwise but only afterwards.
War very often requires quick decisions by those in charge and nobody needs monday quarterbacks -a similar problem.
-----
Having said that, in WWI thousands of soldiers were send to attack machine gun sites with no bullets in their rifles.
The thinking was that if they had bullets, many or most, would drop to the ground to shoot and ALL, or most, would get killed but, if ALL ran to the machine gun some would reach it and shoot the sobs. At that time, machine guns had a much slower rate of fire than modern rifles, in automatic.

Answer 5

Balls to the wall up the hill. But the officer can refuse an order when he feels it is morally wrong and is needlessly putting the lives of his soldiers in jeopardy. Problem with your question is that his order is crucial in completeing the mission. Now if the hill was out of sector and had no bearing on the mission and that his superior just wanted him dead, he could refuse, he would have a gerneral courts marshal afterward to determine what went on.

Answer 6

Lieutenant's responsibility is to find a way to make this attack so he can ensure the survival of his unit. You don't run head long into machine gun fire and rifle grenades unless you have a death wish. Find the hole in their defense, infiltrate and attack them in the rear of the enemy's position. Use your mind and the benefit of your training to find a way.

There is no such thing as the no win situation, only limited minds that are incapable of exploring the possibilities.

Answer 7

It is a lawful order and most be followed. Keep in mind he may be forced into an attack that he knows will not succeed in order to hold the enemy down so an attack elsewhere will succeed.

They only time you can disobey an order is if it is illegal or immoral.

Answer 8

Only one option: try and take the hill. It's a legal order. Failure to obey that lawful order would subject the officer to court-martial.

Answer 9

He has none!! The Military is not a democracy. This happens hundreds of times in past wars and conflict.Usually results in a Court martial.

Answer 10

THAT IS A LAWFUL ORDER , THEREFORE MAY NOT BE DECLINED, BUT AN UNLAWFUL ORDER, SUCH AS 100 AGAINST 25 AND THE LEADER SAYS TAKE NO PRISONERS, MAY BE DECLINED AS UNLAWFUL!