With troops dispersed on fields of battle rather than on the parade ground, it may seem that a certain amount of monitoring is automatically enforced by the lines of communication. Years ago this was true, but with the replacement of wires or runners by radio and radar (and perhaps television), these restrictions have disappeared and now again too much is heard.

In contrast to cocktail parties, military organizations, even in the field, are more formal. In the extreme and oversimplified example suggested in Figure 3, the organization is more easily understood and more predictable in behavior. A military organization has an objective chosen by the higher command. This objective is adhered to throughout the duration of the action. The connective system, or network, is tailored to meet the requirements of the objective, and it is therefore not surprising that a military body acting as a single coordinated unit has a different communication network than a factory, a college, or a rural village.

The assumptions upon which the example shown in Figure 3 is based are: (a) One man can direct about six subordinates if the subordinates are chosen carefully so that they do not need too much personal coaching, indoctrinating, etc.. (b) A message runs too great a risk of being distorted if it is to be relayed more than about six consecutive times. (c) Decisions of a general kind are made by the central command. And (d) all action of a physical kind pertinent to the mission is relegated to the line of men on the lower rank. These assumptions lead to an organization with one man at the top, six directly under him, six under each of these, and so on until there are six levels of personnel. The number of people acting as one body by this scheme gives a surprisingly large army of ** f 55987 men.