In this paper, we argue that disciplined disobedience, a more pronounced interpretation of mission command, is a function of battlefield realities and force composition, rather than preconceived tactics or doctrine. Although theoretically sound, its effective implementation depends, in large part, on real-world battlefield limitations such as the obstruction of effective communication, limitations to force concentration, and external pressures such as an overwhelming enemy advantage in manpower or equipment, and the composition of the Army’s source population. However, even under ideal circumstances, disciplined disobedience can still be hampered by a military that does not sufficiently differentiate between responsibility and blame.