Combined arms
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2009) |
Part of a series on |
War |
---|
Combined arms is an approach to
According to the strategist William S. Lind, combined arms can be distinguished from the concept of "supporting arms" as follows:
Combined arms hits the enemy with two or more arms simultaneously in such a manner that the actions he must take to defend himself from one make him more vulnerable to another. In contrast, supporting arms is hitting the enemy with two or more arms in sequence, or if simultaneously, then in such combination that the actions the enemy must take to defend himself from one also defends himself from the other(s).[2]
Though the lower-
Also, most modern military units can, if the situation requires it, call on yet more branches of the military, such as infantry requesting bombing or shelling by military aircraft or naval forces to augment their ground offensive or protect their land forces. The mixing of arms is sometimes pushed down below the level at which homogeneity ordinarily prevails, such as by temporarily attaching a tank company to an infantry battalion.
Ancient warfare
Combined arms operations date back to antiquity, where armies would usually field a screen of
Philip II of Macedon greatly improved upon the limited combined arms tactics of the Greek city-states and combined the newly created Macedonian phalanx with heavy cavalry and other forces. The phalanx would hold the opposing line in place, until the heavy cavalry could smash and break the enemy line by achieving local superiority.
The early Republic
The Legion then became notionally a unit of heavy infantrymen armed with just sword and pilum, and fielded with a small attached auxiliary skirmishers and missile troops, and incorporated a small cavalry unit. The legion was sometimes also incorporated into a higher-echelon combined arms unit – e.g., in one period it was customary for a general to command two legions plus two similarly sized units of auxiliaries, lighter units useful as screens or for combat in rough terrain. Later during the Roman Empire, auxiliary soldiers outnumbered the core legionary troops.
The army of the Han dynasty is also an example, fielding mêlée infantry (equipped with a variety of different weapons ranging from swords to pikes to halberd-like weapons), archers, crossbowmen, and cavalry (ranging from horse archers to heavy lancers). One recorded tactical formation during the Han dynasty included three ranks of halberds, swordsmen, and spearmen, supported by crossbows, and with cavalry on the flanks.
Civilizations such as the
Middle Ages
At the
The English victories of
During the Middle Ages military forces used combined arms as a method of winning battles and furthering a war leader or king's long-term goals. Some historians claim that during the Middle Ages there was no strategic or tactical art to military combat.[who?] Kelly DeVries uses the Merriam-Webster definition of combat "as a general military engagement".[5] In the pursuit of a leader's goals and self-interest tactical and strategic thinking was used along with taking advantage of the terrain and weather in choosing when and where to give battle. The simplest example is the combination of different specialties such as archers, infantry, cavalry (knights or shock mounted troops), and even peasant militia. At times, each force fought on its own and won or lost depending on the opposing military competence. During the Middle Ages leaders utilized a combination of these skilled and unskilled forces to win battles. An army that has multiple skills available can engage a larger force that incorporates mainly one or two types of troops.
Each type of military formation – infantry, archers, cavalry, or peasants – has certain advantages that the other does not have. Infantry allows a force to hold ground and in the event of overwhelming enemy forces withdraw into terrain that mounted troops cannot maneuver as easily, thus negating the advantage of the horse. Archers provide standoff with their bows or crossbows. Cavalry can maneuver faster and provide fast attack before the enemy has had time to prepare defenses. Peasants are more numerous and cheaper on the royal coffers. Over the long term the army can cross-train and learn the skills of the specialties to increase combat effectiveness. This is known as a combat multiplier today. The combination of the different skills help provide a commander the flexibility to minimize risk when it comes to engagements. The overall objective of any military force is to fight and win, while also preserving the largest number of combatants to carry on the larger strategic aims of the king. This can be seen in some of the engagements during the Middle Ages.
Examples of middle ages combined arms use in battle
The effective use of combined arms can – in conjunction with strategic and tactical considerations – overwhelm opposing forces, even those which are numerically superior. The use of terrain and weather can also aid in the use of combined arms to bring about the desired results of the commander of a military force.[6][5]
- Crecy-en-Ponthieu
Mid-1346, at
- Battle of Morgarten
In 1315, Swiss peasants, archers, and infantry at Morgarten were able to ambush a larger Austrian force. The Swiss had rebelled against Austrian rule and funneled the Austrian forces into easily defended passes in the Swiss mountains. The peasants and archers on the high ground effectively rained down arrows and rocks to disorganize the Austrian forces and the infantry charged in forcing the advance guard to retreat into the main body causing more confusion, as well as a general military retreat by the Austrian military.
- Battle of Auberoche
In 1345, an English army of about 1,200 men had been moving through the Périgord region of Gascony. The French army had caught up outside the town of Auberoche but did not know the English had hidden in the woods near where the French had encamped upon arrival. During the evening meal the French were surprised by an attack under the cover of English archers. The disorganized French forces were slaughtered and had no choice but to withdraw.
15th to 18th centuries
Generally the savanna cavalries of West Africa used a combined arms approach, seldom operating without supporting infantry.[7]
The
The late
In Japan, at the battle of Nagashino (長篠の戦い) in 1575, forces of the Oda clan successfully employed combined arms against the Takeda clan, which heavily relied on cavalry. The Oda army erected palisades to protect their ashigaru musketeers that shot down the Takeda cavalry while their samurai cut down any enemies who managed to approach melee range.
The 17th century saw increasing use of combined arms at lower (regimental) level. King
In the eighteenth century, the concept of the legion was revived. Legions now consisted of
Napoleonic Wars
After 25 years of near continuous warfare, the armies that met at the
In contrast the 27th (Inniskilling) suffered 478 casualties from an initial strength of 750 because of their exposure to attack by French combined arms. They were located near the centre of Wellington's line, but unlike most of the rest of Wellington's infantry were in a declivity on the exposed side of the Mont-Saint-Jean escarpment. Exposed as they were, they were forced to stand in square for most of the day for fear of cavalry attack and so made an easy dense target for Napoleon's massed artillery.[9]
20th-century developments
First World War
The development of modern combined arms tactics began in the
As the war progressed new combined arms tactics were developed, often described then as the "all arms battle". These included direct close
Second World War
In World War II combined arms was a fundamental part of some operational doctrines like Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg,[11] or the Soviet deep battle doctrine, which was based on combining tanks, mobile units (mechanised infantry or cavalry) and infantry, while supported by artillery.[12]
Cold War years
In 1963 the
The
AirLand Battle was the overall conceptual framework that formed the basis of the US Army's European warfighting doctrine from 1982 into the late 1990s. AirLand Battle emphasized close coordination between land forces acting as an aggressively maneuvering defense, and air forces attacking rear-echelon forces feeding those front line enemy forces.[12]
In the 1991
Post Cold War (1992–present)
In 2000, the US Army began developing a new set of doctrines intended to use information superiority to wage warfare. Six pieces of equipment were crucial for this:
Based on this doctrine, many US ground vehicles moved across the landscape alone. If they encountered an enemy troop or vehicle concentration, they would assume a defensive posture, lay down as much covering fire as they could,
See also
References
- ^ ADRP 3-0: Unified Land Operations (PDF). Department of the Army. 16 May 2012. pp. 1–14. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 March 2016. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
- ISBN 9780813346298.
- ^ Combined Arms Breach (video). OEC G&V. c. 2015.
This visualization was developed for the Maneuver Center of Excellence and is closely based upon the National Training Center Breach and Assault exercise executed circa 1990. This visualization demonstrates viable TTPs as discussed in ATTP 3-90-4 for the conduct of the combined arms breach against a hypothetical enemy.
- ISBN 9781617842856. Set 2.
- ^ a b DeVries, Kelly (1996). Infantry Warfare in the early Fourteenth Century. Rochester, NY: Boydell Press. p. 18.
- ^ DeVries, Kelly; Smith, Robert Douglas (2012). Medieval Military Technology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
- ^ Thornton, pp. 28–34
- ISBN 9781844155996.
- ISBN 9781848325869.
- ^ Palmer, Peter J. (31 May 2009). "Cambrai 1917: The myth of the great tank battle". WesternFrontAssociation.com. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 5 April 2017.
- ^ a b Combined Arms in Battle Since 1939. U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Press, 1992
- ^ a b Lt. Col. Wilson C. Blythe Jr. A History of Operational Art Military Review, November–December 2018.
- ^ "What is a Marine expeditionary unit?". Home of the Thundering Third. United States Marine Corps. 2007. Archived from the original on 17 November 2007.
- ^ Stanton, Shelby (1999). The 1st Cav[elry] in Vietnam: Anatomy of a division. Novato: Presidio Press. pp. 111–132.
- ^ Schlight, John (2003). Help from Above: Air Force close air support of the Army 1946–1973. Washington, D.C.: Air Force History and Museums Program. pp. 299–352.
- ^ Certain Victory: The U.S. Army in the Gulf War. Robert H. Scales, Potomac Books, Inc., 1998
- ^ War in the Persian Gulf: Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm : August 1990-March 1991. Richard Winship Stewart, Government Printing Office, 2010
- ^ The Whirlwind War: The United States Army in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Frank N. Schubert, Center of Military History, United States Army, 1995
Bibliography
- Thornton, John Kelly (1999). Warfare in Atlantic Africa, 1500–1800. Routledge. ISBN 1857283937
Further reading
- House, Jonathan M. (1984). "Toward Combined Arms Warfare: A survey of 20th-century tactics, doctrine, and organization". University Press of the Pacific. US Army Command General Staff College.
- Perry, Roland (2004). Monash: The Outsider Who Won a War. Sydney: Random House.