Small Unit Cohesion

Small units are dependent on strong bonds built among members of squads or platoons, as well as the individual motivation and will to fight. Small unit cohesion exists as the strongest connection among soldiers and remains the strongest motivating factor in a soldier’s will, even stronger than personal survival. These bonds often become so strong (especially during long combat periods), that their loyalties surpass even loyalty to higher organizations. This entry looks at studies of small unit cohesion and the role of small unit cohesion on morale and unit effectiveness.

Prior to World War I and the interwar years, little emphasis was placed on the needs of the regular soldier outside basic physiological necessities, and many supposed that future trends in technological warfare would eliminate much of the necessity for the human role in combat. The major contributions of strong, cohesive small units during World War II proved the vital role that this structure plays in the effectiveness of troops in long-term combat. While many obvious motivating factors such as a sense of duty and honor play a role in keeping troops motivated, effective small units depend heavily on the cooperation and positive relationships among members of a particular squad or platoon.

There are a number of other factors, physical and psychological, that contribute to a soldier’s continuing will to fight. Personal survival, first and foremost, seems to fall aside when considering the collective needs of a cohesive unit, and this is furthered in demonstrations of soldiers risking their lives for members of their group (rather than for the ideological or political goals of combat). Leaders, on the other hand, not only provide that ideological motivation for their soldiers but also motivate the will to fight through positive relationships with the troops. The demonstrable effect of leadership on soldiers also extends to negative attitudes displayed by leaders, which spread similarly through the units.

These factors, both social and psychological, work together in a number of ways that affect small unit cohesion. Edward A. Shils and Morris Janowitz’s 1948 study, “Cohesion and Disintegration in the Wehrmacht in World War II,” sheds light on a number of key factors in the remarkably strong unit cohesion in the German army, even toward the final days of the war. Their study, based on wartime interviews with German prisoners of war from the Western front, reveals that soldiers were consistently more resistant to surrender or desertion when strong bonds existed among men of a particular unit, regardless of their effect on their personal survival or safety. The contributing factors to this cohesion included the German traditional notions of military honor, careful attempts by authority to maintain good relations among various levels of rank, and paternal attitudes adopted by German officers toward their troops (some even referred to their men as their Kinder, or children). These bonds rarely dissipated by the war’s end, unless the group was cut off from supplies or medical attention.

This strong small unit cohesion is revealed to be part of the distinction soldiers made between primary and secondary groups, and their relation to their primary group (i.e., their small unit). Soldiers whose physiological needs were being met and who received esteem from their fellow group members formed tighter bonds with their primary group and placed its needs above their individual needs, often due to shared common experiences and a sense of external authority to keep individual aggression in check. Furthermore, at this level of cohesion, “secondary symbols,” such as the Nazi regime and the moral and ethical dilemmas surrounding its war effort, remained just that and factored little into the day-to-day willingness to fight by the average infantry soldier. Political, ethical, and religious considerations were often secondary concerns in the minds of the prisoners of war interviewed.

...