Hubbry Logo
Combined armsCombined armsMain
Open search
Combined arms
Community hub
Combined arms
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Combined arms
Combined arms
Combined arms
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Infantry, armor, and aerial units of the United States Army together as part of Operation Inherent Resolve during the Syrian civil war
Part of a series on
War
(outline)
History
Military
Battlespace
Weapons
Tactics
List of military tactics
Operational
Strategy
List of military strategies and concepts
Grand strategy
Administrative
Organization
Personnel
Logistics
Science
Law
Theory
Non-warfare
Culture
Books
Related
Lists

Combined arms is an approach to warfare that seeks to integrate different combat arms of a military to achieve mutually complementary effects—for example, using infantry and armour in an urban environment in which each supports the other.[1]

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-echelon units of a combined arms team may be of similar types, a balanced mixture of such units are combined into an effective higher-echelon unit, whether formally in a table of organization or informally in an ad hoc solution to a battlefield problem. For example, an armoured division, the modern paragon of combined arms doctrine, consists of a mixture of mechanized infantry, tank, artillery, reconnaissance, anti-air support, drone support, close air support and helicopter units, all of which are co-ordinated and directed by a unified command structure.[3]

Also, most modern military units can, if the situation requires it, call on yet more branches of the military, such as infantry requesting space warfare, Cyberwarfare or Electromagnetic warfare support; or the 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.

History

[edit]

Ancient warfare

[edit]
Main article: Ancient warfare

Combined arms operations date back to antiquity, where armies would usually field a screen of skirmishers to protect their spearmen during the approach to contact. Especially in the case of the Greek hoplites, however, the focus of military thinking lay almost exclusively on the heavy infantry. In more elaborate situations armies of various nationalities fielded different combinations of light, medium, or heavy infantry, light or heavy cavalry, chariotry, camelry, elephantry, and artillery (mechanical weapons). Combined arms in this context was how to best use the cooperating units, variously armed with side-arms, spears, or missile weapons in order to coordinate an attack to disrupt and then destroy the enemy.

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 Roman Legion was a combined arms force and consisted of five classes of troops. Lightly equipped velites acted as skirmishers armed with light javelins. The hastati and principes formed the main attacking strength of the legion with swords and pila, whilst the triarii formed the defensive backbone of the legion fighting as spearmen (initially as a denser Greek phalanx and later as a looser spear wall formation) with long spears and large shields. The fifth class of troops were the equites (the cavalry), which were used for scouting, pursuit and to guard the flanks.

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 Carthaginians and Sassanids also were known to have fielded a combination of infantry supported by powerful cavalry.

Post-Classical warfare

[edit]

At the Battle of Hastings (1066) English infantry fighting from behind a shield wall were defeated by a Norman army consisting of archers, foot soldiers (infantry), and mounted knights (cavalry). One of the tactics used by the Normans was to tempt the English to leave the shield wall to attack retreating Norman infantry only to destroy them in the open with cavalry. Likewise Scottish sheltrons – which had been developed to counter the charges by English heavy cavalry, and had been used successfully against English cavalry at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (1297) – were destroyed at the Battle of Falkirk (1298) by English archers acting in concert with mounted knights. Both Hastings and Falkirk showed how combined arms could be used to defeat enemies relying on only one arm.[4]

The English victories of Crécy, Poitiers and Agincourt were examples of a simple form of combined arms, with a combination of dismounted knights forming a foundation for formations of English longbowmen. The lightly protected longbowmen could down their French opponents at a distance, whilst the armoured men-at-arms could deal with any Frenchmen who made it to the English lines. This is the crux of combined arms: to allow a combination of forces to achieve what would be impossible for its constituent elements to do alone.

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.

Early Modern warfare

[edit]
Main article: Early modern warfare

15th to 17th centuries

[edit]

Generally the savanna cavalries of West Africa used a combined arms approach, seldom operating without supporting infantry.[6]

The French army of the Valois kings, composed of heavily armoured gendarmes (professional versions of the medieval knight), Swiss and Landsknecht mercenary pikemen, and heavy cannons took form during the transition from the medieval way of war to the early modern period.

The late 15th century saw the development of combined pike and shot formations in Europe, starting with the colunelas of the Spanish general Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, evolving into the tercios of Habsburg Spain and the Imperial Army of the Holy Roman Emperor during the 16th century.

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 Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden was the proponent of the idea. For fire support he attached teams of "commanded musketeers" to cavalry units and fielded light 3-pounder guns to provide infantry units with organic artillery.

Modern warfare

[edit]

In the eighteenth century, the concept of the legion was revived. Legions now consisted of musketeers, light infantry, dragoons and artillery in a brigade sized force. These legions often combined professional military personnel with militia. Perhaps the most notable example is the use of light cavalry, light infantry and light horse artillery in advance detachments by France's La Grande Armée during the Napoleonic Wars.

Napoleonic Wars

[edit]
Main article: Napoleonic weaponry and warfare

After 25 years of near continuous warfare, the armies that met at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 were organized in a similar manner – into corps which contained infantry, cavalry and artillery (see Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign), and used similar combined arms tactics. Within each corps were divisions of infantry or cavalry made up of brigades and an artillery unit. An army would usually also have reserves of all three arms under the direct command of the army commander which could be sent in support of any corps or division of a corps to increase any arm which the army general considered necessary. The great French cavalry charge commanded by Marshal Ney during the battle failed to break Wellington's squares of infantry and Ney's failure to supplement his cavalry with sufficient horse artillery to break the squares open is usually given as a major contributing factor in the failure. It is an example of why generals needed to use combined arms to overcome the tactics used by enemy officers to frustrate an attack by a single arm of an army.[7]

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.[8]

20th-century developments

[edit]
Vietnamese aircraft, infantry, and armored vehicles working together during training in 1963, Vietnam War
First World War
[edit]

The development of modern combined arms tactics began in the First World War. Early in the Western Front, fighting descended into stagnant trench warfare. Generals on both sides applied conventional military thinking to the new weapons and situations that they faced. In these early stages, tactics typically consisted of heavy artillery barrages followed by massed frontal assaults against well entrenched enemies. These tactics were largely unsuccessful and resulted in large loss of life.

As the war progressed new combined arms tactics were developed, often described then as the "all arms battle". These included direct close artillery fire support for attacking soldiers (the creeping barrage), air support and mutual support of tanks and infantry. One of the first instances of combined arms was the Battle of Cambrai, in which the British used tanks, artillery, infantry, small arms and air power to break through enemy lines.[9] Previously such a battle would have lasted months with many hundreds of thousands of casualties. Co-ordination and planning were the key elements, and the use of combined arms tactics in the Hundred Days Offensive in 1918 allowed the Allied forces to exploit breakthroughs in the enemy trenches, forcing the surrender of the Central Powers.

Second World War
[edit]

In World War II combined arms was a fundamental part of some operational doctrines like Heinz Guderian's Blitzkrieg,[10] or the Soviet deep battle doctrine, which was based on combining tanks, mobile units (mechanised infantry or cavalry) and infantry, while supported by artillery.[11]

Cold War years
[edit]

In 1963 the United States Marine Corps formalized the concept of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force, which combined Marine aviation and Marine ground units for expeditionary missions.[12]

The Vietnam War had a profound influence on the development of the US Army's combined arms doctrine. Due to the very difficult terrain that prevented access to the enemy-held areas of operation, troops were often deployed by air assault. For this reason, US troops in Vietnam saw six times more combat than in preceding wars, due to less time spent on logistic delays. The result: an infantry unit increased in effectiveness by a factor of four for its size, when supported with helicopter-delivered ammunition, food and fuel.[13] In time the US Army in Vietnam also learned to combine helicopter operations and airmobile infantry with the armoured and artillery units operating from fire support bases as well as the US brown-water navy and USAF close air support units supporting them.[14]

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.[11]

In the 1991 Gulf War, General Schwarzkopf used a mix of strikes by fixed-wing aircraft including carpet bombing and precision bombing in combination with large numbers of strikes by attack helicopters. During the ground assault phase, tanks and other armoured fighting vehicles supported by attack aircraft swept over remaining forces. The front line moved forward at upwards of 40–50 km/h at the upper limit of the Army's tracked vehicles.[15][10][16][17]

Post Cold War
[edit]
South Korean combat vehicles and infantry in Gyeonggi Province

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: Boeing E-3 Sentry for Airborne early warning and control, Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (for Airborne ground surveillance), GPS, VHF SINCGARS (for ground and airborne communications), and ruggedized computers. The mix is supplemented by satellite photos and passive reception of enemy radio emissions, forward observers with digital target designation, specialized scouting aircraft, anti-artillery radars and gun-laying software for artillery.

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, designate the targets for requested air and artillery assets. Within a few minutes, on station aircraft would direct their missions to cover the ground vehicle. Within a half-hour heavy attack forces would concentrate to relieve the isolated vehicle. In an hour and a half the relieved vehicle would be resupplied.

21st-century developments

[edit]

In 2020, the Israel Defense Forces established the Multidimensional Unit, a dedicated combined arms battalion to test the viability of full integration of infantry, armor, and aircraft into a single battalion command structure. The unit fields Merkava Mk.4 main battle tanks, F-16D multirole fighters, Heron and Hermes 450 drones, and AH-64 Apache helicopters.[18]

During the Russo-Ukrainian War, Ukrainian units demonstrated the essentialness of 21st century combined arms against a numerically superior adversary; and demonstrated how Russian tanks, no matter how numerous, could be highly vulnerable when deployed without sufficient infantry cover, air defense, and electronic warfare support.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Combined arms

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Combined arms is the synchronized and simultaneous application of the elements of power that together achieve an effect greater than if each element was used separately or sequentially. This integrates diverse capabilities, including , armor, , , engineers, and increasingly cyber and assets, to create synergistic effects on the that exploit enemy vulnerabilities while mitigating the limitations of individual arms. The concept traces its modern origins to the early , evolving from the static of , where the separate employment of arms proved insufficient against fortified positions. Interwar theorists, particularly in , advanced combined arms through innovations in mechanization and mobility; , a key proponent, advocated for the close coordination of tanks, , , and air support, forming the basis of tactics that emphasized speed and decisive breakthroughs during . The U.S. Army formalized these principles in its doctrine post-, subordinating tanks to initially but shifting toward integrated by , as detailed in historical analyses of tactical evolution. In the post-World War II era, combined arms became central to U.S. military operations across Korea, , the , and beyond, adapting to and high-intensity conflicts through enhanced joint integration. Current doctrine, as outlined in the March 2025 edition of Field Manual 3-0, Operations, expands combined arms into multi-domain operations, employing joint and Army capabilities across land, air, maritime, space, and to create and exploit advantages in large-scale combat against peer adversaries. This evolution underscores combined arms as a foundational principle for achieving operational superiority in complex, contested environments.

Fundamentals

Definition and Origins

Combined arms refers to the coordinated and synchronized application of different elements of combat power—such as , armor, , aviation, and engineers—within a to achieve effects that exceed the capabilities of any single arm operating independently. This integration leverages the unique strengths of each component to compensate for their inherent vulnerabilities, thereby creating synergistic outcomes on the battlefield that disrupt enemy and responses across multiple dilemmas simultaneously. The conceptual foundations of combined arms trace back to early military practices and gained more explicit doctrinal form in European military writings by the , particularly through , who promoted decentralized command structures—known as Auftragstaktik—to enable the fluid coordination of , , and in large-scale operations, marking a shift toward systematic combined arms integration in modern armies. A key distinction exists between combined arms, which focuses on tactical-level integration of branches within a single service like the , and operations, which entail strategic-level coordination across multiple services such as , , and to synchronize effects across domains.

Core Principles

Combined arms operations rely on several core principles to integrate diverse capabilities effectively, ensuring that the strengths of one arm compensate for the weaknesses of another while maximizing overall combat power. These principles emphasize coordination across time, space, and purpose to achieve decisive effects on the . Synchronization is the arrangement of military actions in time, space, and purpose to produce maximum relative power at a decisive place and time. This principle ensures that supporting elements, such as providing , align precisely with the movements of advancing forces like to suppress or distract the enemy during assaults. Without proper , individual arms may operate in isolation, reducing their collective impact and exposing vulnerabilities. Mutual support involves positioning and employing arms to cover each other's vulnerabilities, creating complementary and supplementary effects through integrated actions. For instance, anti-tank weapons can protect armored units from enemy threats by engaging potential attackers, while secures flanks against dismounted assaults. This principle fosters resilience by ensuring no single arm operates without reinforcement from others, thereby denying the enemy opportunities to exploit weaknesses. Fire and maneuver is a tactical cycle where one element suppresses the enemy with direct or to fix them in place, allowing another element to maneuver to a more advantageous position. The process alternates between these phases: suppression pins the enemy, enabling movement under cover, followed by repositioning to continue the cycle until the objective is seized. This principle, distinct from mere , relies on coordinated suppression from supporting arms to enable decisive advances by maneuvering forces. Depth and reserves establish layered formations through echelonment, distributing forces across multiple lines to absorb enemy counterattacks and maintain . Echelonment arranges units in successive waves or positions, with reserves held back to reinforce critical points or exploit breakthroughs, providing resilience and the ability to sustain operations over extended areas. This approach prevents enemy penetration from collapsing the entire force by allowing rear echelons to engage reserves and restore the line.

Essential Components

Infantry forms the foundational element of combined arms, specializing in close-quarters combat to seize, clear, and hold key terrain while offering the adaptability required to maneuver in complex environments. As the most versatile branch, units integrate with other arms to exploit gaps, conduct assaults, and maintain presence on the , ensuring that ground objectives are secured through direct engagement. Armored forces provide the mobility, protection, and concentrated essential for rapid advances and decisive breakthroughs, utilizing tanks and armored fighting vehicles to overwhelm enemy positions and disrupt defenses. These assets enable swift exploitation of weaknesses, delivering shock effects that complement the holding power of by pushing forward under protective cover. and assets deliver indirect fires to suppress, neutralize, or destroy enemy targets at extended ranges, employing systems such as field guns, howitzers, and to shape the prior to and during maneuver. By providing volume and precision over areas that direct fires cannot reach, these components amplify the effectiveness of ground forces, creating windows for advances while minimizing exposure to counterfire. Air assets extend the reach of combined arms through reconnaissance, interdiction, and direct support, with close air support from fixed-wing aircraft, rotary-wing helicopters, and army aviation delivering precision strikes to protect maneuvering elements from threats. These elements enhance situational awareness and firepower multiplicity, allowing ground components to operate with reduced risk from aerial perspectives. Engineers and units underpin all combined arms efforts by ensuring mobility, constructing fortifications, and delivering sustainment, with combat engineers focused on obstacle breaching, route clearance, and defensive works to facilitate unhindered movement. elements manage the supply of , , and , enabling prolonged operations by synchronizing resources across branches and preventing disruptions that could isolate forward units. Through these support roles, engineers and logisticians enable the seamless integration of under principles of mutual support.

Historical Development

Ancient and Classical Warfare

The Assyrian Empire, during the 9th to 7th centuries BCE, exemplified one of the earliest systematic applications of combined arms through the integration of chariots, archers, and in both open battles and sieges. Chariot forces, often comprising elite warriors with composite bows, enabled rapid strikes across Mesopotamian plains, supported by shield-bearers who protected archers during advances and assaults on fortifications. This coordination allowed for tactical versatility, such as using chariots to disrupt enemy lines while conducted breakthroughs or maintained blockades, as seen in campaigns against cities like Lachish. Siege teams further combined these elements, with charioteers and large mobile shields providing cover for archers to suppress defenders, marking a shift from isolated tribal warfare to professional, multi-unit operations. In Greek hoplite warfare of the 5th to 4th centuries BCE, the phalanx formation of heavily armored infantry served as the core, but its effectiveness relied on integration with light troops and cavalry to address vulnerabilities on the flanks and in irregular terrain. Hoplites, equipped with spears and shields, formed dense frontal lines for shock combat, while peltasts—lightly armed javelin-throwers—and skirmishers harassed enemies from the sides or rear, disrupting cohesion before the phalanx engaged. Cavalry units, though less emphasized than in Eastern armies, protected the phalanx's wings and pursued routing foes, as demonstrated in battles like Marathon where mixed forces countered Persian mobility. This rudimentary combined approach compensated for the phalanx's rigidity, allowing Greek city-states to adapt to diverse opponents despite the dominance of heavy infantry narratives in historical accounts. The Roman legions from the 3rd century BCE to the 5th century CE advanced combined arms through the manipular system, which organized infantry into flexible maniples of (younger front-line troops), (experienced mid-line fighters), and (veteran reserves), complemented by for specialized roles. This staggered deployment provided depth, enabling to probe and tire enemies before rotated in for sustained pressure, with holding as a last line; the system's checkerboard arrangement allowed individual units to maneuver independently, adapting to uneven ground or breakthroughs. , including archers, slingers, and from allied provinces, screened flanks, provided missile support, and exploited gaps, enhancing overall legionary versatility against diverse foes like or Hellenistic kingdoms. Under in the 4th century BCE, the represented a pinnacle of ancient combined arms, pairing long-pike with elite in the hammer-and-anvil tactic to overcome numerically superior Persian forces. The sarissa-equipped fixed enemies in place with its impenetrable frontal wall, creating an "anvil" effect, while the —noble heavy horsemen—delivered decisive "hammer" charges on exposed flanks or rear, as executed at battles like Issus and Gaugamela. This synergy, building on Philip II's reforms, allowed a smaller Macedonian to shatter larger armies by combining the 's holding power with cavalry's shock capability, fundamentally altering conquest dynamics in the .

Medieval and Renaissance Periods

In the Medieval period, particularly from the 9th to 14th centuries in feudal , combined arms tactics emphasized the dominance of knights supported by lighter and archers, reflecting the where mounted nobles led assaults while levies provided auxiliary roles. The in 1066 exemplified this integration, where Norman knights executed devastating charges against Anglo-Saxon shield walls, bolstered by archers who softened enemy formations from afar and that held ground to protect archer positions. This approach relied on the mobility and shock value of armored to break lines, with and missile troops creating opportunities for decisive strikes, though coordination often suffered from feudal levies' limited training. The Mongol invasions of the 13th century advanced combined arms through a highly mobile synthesis of horse archers, heavy lancers, and specialized engineers, enabling rapid conquests across by exploiting speed and firepower in concert. Mongol armies typically fielded archers who harassed and outmaneuvered foes at range, for close assaults on disrupted enemies, and units with trebuchets and devices to breach fortifications, as seen in the rapid subjugation of the Khwarezmian Empire in 1219–1221. This integration allowed tactical flexibility, with scouts and feigned retreats drawing opponents into ambushes where combined elements overwhelmed them, marking a shift toward nomadic adaptations of earlier warfare traditions. During the (1337–1453), evolving combined arms in Europe diminished cavalry's primacy through the rise of massed longbowmen, dismounted knights functioning as , and nascent , fostering more balanced battlefield dynamics. English forces at Crécy in 1346 deployed longbowmen in defensive positions to decimate French knight charges, with dismounted men-at-arms anchoring the line and early cannons providing sporadic fire support against advancing foes. This tactical evolution, driven by technological and logistical changes, compelled armies to coordinate missile barrages with melee units, as French adaptations at later battles like (1356) incorporated crossbowmen and to counter English volleys. In the from the 14th to 16th centuries, the corps represented a pinnacle of combined arms integration, pairing elite firearm-equipped with and mobile trains to sustain expansive campaigns. Janissaries, trained as professional and fighters, provided disciplined firepower that pinned enemies, allowing light and to execute flanking maneuvers, while wagon-borne cannons and bombards demolished defenses, as demonstrated in the siege of . This system, refined under sultans like , emphasized logistical coordination and unit interdependence, enabling the Ottomans to blend Eastern and Western influences for victories like in 1526.

Early Modern and Napoleonic Eras

The Early Modern period saw the emergence of combined arms tactics through the integration of , firearms, and in disciplined formations, driven by the widespread adoption of weapons. The Spanish tercios, developed in the , exemplified this shift by combining pikemen for close-quarters defense with (or "shot") for ranged fire, typically organized into units of about 3,000 men divided into 12 companies—six of pike and six of shot—supported by for screening and pursuit. This structure allowed tercios to maintain a protective against charges while delivering continuous volleys from the shot positioned in the intervals, enabling sustained firepower against advancing enemies during conflicts like the and the . The tercios' flexibility marked a departure from medieval massed , emphasizing coordinated arms to counter the vulnerabilities of early firearms, and they remained a dominant formation into the 17th century despite evolving threats. In the 17th century, Swedish King advanced these concepts during the by reforming army organization to enhance mobility and firepower integration, earning him recognition as the "Father of Combined Arms Warfare." His innovations included lighter, more maneuverable pieces that could accompany on the march and be positioned flexibly on the , often in batteries supporting linear formations rather than cumbersome guns. restructured into shallower brigades of six ranks, allowing faster reloading and , while introducing salvos coordinated with barrages to disrupt enemy lines before close combat; this was paired with aggressive charges using swords rather than pistols for shock impact. At battles like Breitenfeld in 1631, these reforms enabled Swedish forces to outmaneuver larger Habsburg armies by synchronizing squares protected by mobile guns with flanking , demonstrating how combined arms could achieve decisive results through speed and mutual support rather than sheer numbers. His emphasis on , , and tactical cohesion influenced European armies, bridging pike-and-shot era limitations toward more fluid operations. Prussian King Frederick the Great further refined maneuver warfare in the mid-18th century, employing the oblique order to concentrate force through integrated use of infantry, light cavalry (hussars), and artillery during the War of the Austrian Succession and Seven Years' War. The oblique order involved refusing one wing of the army to hold defensively while aggressively advancing the other at an angle to strike the enemy's flank, overwhelming a key sector before the full line could respond; this required precise timing, with hussars screening movements and harassing enemy flanks to create openings. Prussian infantry, trained in rapid linear advances and oblique maneuvers, would fix the enemy front with musket fire supported by regimental guns, while the attacking wing delivered enfilading artillery and bayonet charges. Iconic applications occurred at Rossbach in 1757, where Frederick's approximately 22,000 troops defeated over 40,000 French and Imperial forces, and at Leuthen later that year, where his approximately 36,000 troops defeated around 65,000 Austrians. In both, terrain-masked marches enabled execution of the oblique attack, leveraging combined arms to achieve local superiority and rout the enemy with minimal losses. These tactics underscored the importance of discipline and reconnaissance in pre-industrial warfare, setting a standard for operational art until the Napoleonic era. The (1790s–1815) represented the pinnacle of early modern combined arms through mass mobilization and the system, which organized armies into self-sufficient units blending infantry divisions, cavalry, and for sustained campaigning. Napoleon's divided into of 20,000–30,000 men each, comprising multiple infantry divisions for assault, for rapid repositioning and close support, and heavy cavalry like cuirassiers for breakthroughs, allowing independent action while converging for battle. This structure facilitated "grand tactics," where maneuvered strategically to concentrate at decisive points, integrating skirmishers to soften lines, massed to shatter formations, and coordinated charges to exploit breaches. The in 1805 illustrated this mastery: feigned weakness on his right to lure the Austro-Russian army into attacking, then counterattacked with Marshal Soult's IV infantry divisions supported by barrages, followed by cuirassier charges that collapsed the enemy center and led to over 27,000 Allied casualties against French losses of about 9,000. Such operations highlighted how the system enabled operational flexibility and synergistic arms employment, influencing well into the despite the era's reliance on linear .

Industrial and World War Periods

The industrialization of warfare in the transformed combined arms by enhancing firepower through rifled weapons and , while improving mobility via railroads and telegraphs, allowing for more coordinated operations across larger battlefields. These advancements shifted tactics from the fluid maneuvers of earlier eras toward integrated fire support and exploitation, though limitations in technology often led to stalemates. The exemplified this transition, as both Union and Confederate forces adapted pre-industrial doctrines to new industrial capabilities. In the (1861-1865), rifle-musket , with their extended effective range of up to 500 yards, formed the core of defensive lines, supported by that provided to halt enemy assaults. For instance, at battles like Malvern Hill and Antietam, rifled combined with barrages repelled charges, demonstrating the lethality of integrated firepower against massed attacks. played a and raiding role, using mobility to disrupt supply lines and flanks, as seen in Confederate General J.E.B. Stuart's rides that screened movements and gathered intelligence. This combination marked an early industrial application of combined arms, though poor communication often hindered full synchronization. The (1870-1871) further advanced combined arms through breech-loading rifles and , enabling Prussian forces to achieve rapid, decisive victories over the French. The Prussian , with its faster reloading, allowed infantry to maintain fire superiority, integrated with breech-loading field guns that outranged French muzzle-loaders and provided mobile support during advances. French attempts to counter with the , an early multi-barrel , faltered due to its inaccuracy and vulnerability to , highlighting the need for concealed positioning in combined operations. Uhlans, Prussian lancers, complemented this by conducting aggressive charges and reconnaissance, as at the , where they exploited gaps created by and infantry fire to envelop French positions. Prussian success stemmed from doctrinal emphasis on all-arms cooperation, including telegraph-coordinated maneuvers that anticipated modern battlefields. World War I (1914-1918) represented the pinnacle and peril of industrial combined arms, as on the Western Front demanded synchronized integration to overcome defensive firepower, but often resulted in attritional stalemates. Creeping barrages—rolling artillery fire advancing ahead of —emerged as a key tactic to suppress machine guns and wire, allowing assaults to gain ground, though mistimed barrages frequently caused friendly casualties. The introduction of tanks at the Battle of in 1917 illustrated mechanized potential, with over 400 British Mark IV tanks supporting to breach the , achieving initial penetrations of 5 miles before counterattacks exposed vulnerabilities in coordination. Aircraft provided essential reconnaissance, spotting enemy movements and adjusting artillery, as in the Somme Offensive where aerial photos guided combined strikes. These elements foreshadowed mature combined arms, but the war's scale underscored the challenges of industrial-era and command. Interwar developments (1920s-1930s) built on lessons, with experiments focusing on mechanized integration to restore mobility. The British , formed in 1927, tested brigade-sized operations combining tanks, , and during exercises on , emphasizing self-contained units for rapid exploitation. This force included a battalion, machine-gun carriers, and elements, validating tank-infantry teams that could advance without traditional horse-drawn support, though logistical constraints limited its permanence. These trials influenced doctrines prioritizing all-arms balance, paving the way for in subsequent conflicts.

Cold War and Late 20th Century

The advent of the nuclear age following profoundly influenced combined arms doctrines, as superpowers like the and developed strategies to integrate conventional forces with nuclear deterrence amid escalating rivalry. While nuclear weapons promised decisive escalation, military planners emphasized to achieve battlefield superiority without triggering all-out atomic conflict, preserving flexibility in limited wars. This era saw combined arms evolve from precedents, where doctrines prioritized rapid, integrated operations to exploit enemy weaknesses before nuclear thresholds were crossed. World War II laid foundational examples of combined arms that carried into the Cold War, particularly the German , which synchronized Panzer divisions, Stuka dive-bombers for , and to achieve breakthroughs. In the 1940 Ardennes offensive, this integration allowed seven Panzer divisions to traverse the forested region, bypassing the and encircling Allied forces, leading to France's capitulation in . Similarly, the Soviet Deep Battle theory, formalized in and refined during the war, advocated deep operational maneuvers using combined arms—armor for penetration, for suppression, for , and reserves for exploitation—to dismantle enemy defenses across the entire depth of the battlefield, as demonstrated in operations like Bagration in 1944. These approaches influenced postwar doctrines by highlighting the need for seamless inter-service coordination in high-intensity conflicts. During the Cold War's peak from the 1950s to 1980s, and the refined combined arms for potential European theater confrontations, where nuclear risks loomed large. The U.S. Army's doctrine, introduced in 1982, countered numerical superiority by integrating ground maneuver with airpower, including attack helicopters like the AH-64 Apache for anti-armor roles, armored formations for rapid advances, and precision-guided munitions for deep strikes against follow-on forces up to 150 kilometers behind enemy lines. This shift from static defense to offensive depth aimed to disrupt Soviet echelons before nuclear options were considered, emphasizing joint operations to achieve operational momentum. In the (1955-1975), U.S. forces adapted combined arms for , employing airmobile —pioneered by the 1st Division (Airmobile)—transported via UH-1 Huey helicopters to outmaneuver North Vietnamese regulars, supported by artillery fire from bases like those of the 1st Division and from gunships. This "airmobile" integration allowed rapid deployment and firepower concentration, as seen in the 1965 Ia Drang Valley campaign, where artillery and aerial rocket fire suppressed enemy positions to enable assaults, though guerrilla adaptations by forces often neutralized static advantages. Contrasting this, North Vietnamese tactics relied on human-wave assaults with minimal integration, underscoring the challenges of combined arms in asymmetric environments. The 1973 exemplified combined arms' critical role in the late , as recovered from initial Arab surprises through integrated tank-artillery-air operations. Facing Egyptian and Syrian advances supported by Soviet-supplied anti-tank guided missiles and surface-to-air systems, Israeli forces, particularly in the Sinai, coordinated and Patton tanks with for suppressive barrages and strikes to regain air superiority after initial losses. By , this synergy enabled counteroffensives that encircled the Egyptian Third Army, demonstrating how precise integration could overcome anti-armor threats and restore maneuver dominance in a proxy conflict reflecting tensions.

Modern Applications

Doctrinal Evolution

Following the end of the , combined arms doctrine underwent significant theoretical evolution to address emerging global threats, shifting from bipolar confrontation to multifaceted conflicts involving asymmetric actors and regional powers. This period emphasized integrating diverse military capabilities to achieve superior operational effectiveness across varied environments, building on but diverging from earlier frameworks like by prioritizing adaptability to irregular and hybrid challenges. In the , the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) emerged as a pivotal doctrinal concept, positing that advances in would fundamentally transform warfare by enabling unprecedented and coordinated operations. Central to RMA was the pursuit of information dominance, where real-time data sharing among forces would allow for rapid decision-making and synchronized maneuvers, enhancing combined arms integration at tactical and strategic levels. This led to the development of (NCW), a that reoriented military operations around interconnected networks to amplify the effectiveness of joint forces, emphasizing the fusion of sensors, command systems, and effectors to overwhelm adversaries through precision and speed rather than mass alone. By the 2000s, the refined these ideas into the doctrine of , articulated in Joint Vision 2020, which aimed to project power across the entire range of military operations—from peacetime engagement to major theater war. This approach integrated combined arms to operate seamlessly in conventional, irregular, and urban settings, requiring forces to dominate land, sea, air, space, and information domains simultaneously while adapting to low-intensity conflicts and stability operations. Full Spectrum Dominance stressed the need for versatile, expeditionary units capable of transitioning between high-end combat and , ensuring U.S. forces could deter or defeat threats in any operational context without territorial limitations. In the 2010s, advanced as a doctrinal response to Western superiority, blending conventional assets with irregular tactics, operations, and non- tools to achieve strategic objectives below the threshold of full-scale war. Russian doctrines from 2010 and 2014 formalized this integration, viewing hybrid approaches as a means to employ combined arms in "non-contact" phases—using , proxies, and alongside traditional units—to destabilize opponents and create favorable conditions for escalation if needed. This evolution reflected Russia's emphasis on multifaceted threats, where conventional firepower supports subversive elements to erode adversary cohesion without direct confrontation. Concurrently, developed its (A2/AD) strategy to counter potential U.S. intervention in regional contingencies, particularly in the Western Pacific. This integrates combined arms for littoral defense, coordinating ground, naval, and air forces to create layered barriers that restrict adversary access to key maritime areas, such as the . By synchronizing defensive operations across domains, A2/AD enables to protect its coastal approaches through phased engagements that deny freedom of maneuver, focusing on deterrence and control rather than offensive projection.

Technological Integration

Technological integration has transformed combined arms operations by enabling seamless coordination across domains through advanced systems that enhance , precision, and responsiveness. Emerging technologies such as unmanned systems, precision-guided munitions, cyber and electronic warfare tools, and artificial intelligence-driven allow forces to synchronize air, ground, sea, and information effects in real time, reducing risks to personnel while amplifying combat effectiveness. This integration supports doctrines like by providing the technical backbone for shared data and . Unmanned systems, particularly drones, play a pivotal role in , , and strike missions, integrating directly with ground forces to provide persistent overhead support. Small uncrewed aircraft systems (SUAS) enhance combined arms maneuver by delivering real-time to and units, allowing for rapid target identification and adjustment of fire without exposing troops to direct threats. For instance, the MQ-9 Reaper serves primarily as an intelligence-collection platform while secondarily executing dynamic strikes, using advanced sensors to feed data into joint operations centers for coordinated ground-air maneuvers. Its endurance and payload capacity enable sustained overwatch, integrating with manned platforms to disrupt enemy movements in contested environments. The U.S. Marine Corps has accelerated drone lethality through summits focused on incorporating unmanned aerial systems into combined arms training, emphasizing infrastructure for tactical integration. Precision-guided munitions (PGMs) have revolutionized in combined arms by enabling accurate delivery of ordnance, particularly in urban settings where minimizing is critical. GPS-guided artillery rounds, such as the 155mm projectile, allow to strike fixed with high accuracy, supporting advances by neutralizing threats while preserving civilian infrastructure. These systems integrate with forward observers and drone feeds to adjust trajectories in real time, reducing the to meters and enabling urban operations that combine ground maneuver with aerial precision strikes. In multi-domain scenarios, PGMs like laser- or GPS-guided missiles from platforms such as the enhance synchronization, allowing joint forces to engage high-value amid dense populations without widespread destruction. This precision extends to naval and air assets, where guided munitions support amphibious combined arms by providing tailored to ground troop positions. Cyber and electronic warfare capabilities disrupt enemy , creating windows for combined arms exploitation by integrating offensive actions across the and digital networks. Electronic attack systems, including jamming of and communications, neutralize adversary sensors to enable unhindered ground and air maneuvers, functioning as a non-kinetic enabler in multi-domain operations. Cyber operations, such as hacking into enemy networks, complement jamming by degrading command links, allowing synchronized physical strikes on isolated units. The U.S. 's TRADOC framework emphasizes integrating these effects to operate in and through , ensuring electronic warfare supports maneuver elements by denying the enemy real-time coordination. In practice, convergence of cyber and electronic tools within a Marine Air-Ground Task Force synchronizes spectrum warfare with traditional arms, amplifying overall operational tempo. Robotics and (AI) facilitate real-time synchronization in combined arms through autonomous vehicles and decision aids that process vast data streams for human operators. Autonomous ground vehicles, equipped with AI for navigation and threat detection, integrate with manned units to perform , , or roles, reducing exposure in high-risk areas. AI-driven decision aids analyze sensor inputs from multiple platforms to recommend synchronized actions, such as coordinating drone strikes with barrages, enhancing command efficiency without overwhelming personnel. The Department of Defense has deployed commercial AI solutions to sync data from autonomous vehicles, providing real-time operating pictures that aid decision-making in dynamic battlespaces. systems within these technologies support human oversight, ensuring ethical integration while accelerating responses in combined operations.

Case Studies and Challenges

In the Gulf War of 1991, coalition forces exemplified combined arms through seamless air-ground integration, culminating in the "left hook" maneuver that enveloped Iraqi Republican Guard units. The operation began with a massive air campaign that achieved air supremacy within days, degrading Iraqi command structures, logistics, and armored capabilities before ground forces advanced. This integration allowed VII Corps, comprising armored divisions and supported by close air support, to execute a 200-kilometer flanking movement through the western desert, surprising Iraqi defenses positioned for a frontal assault on Kuwait. The maneuver trapped and destroyed over 3,000 Iraqi tanks and vehicles, liberating Kuwait with minimal coalition ground casualties—fewer than 150 killed—demonstrating the decisive impact of synchronized air strikes, artillery preparation, and mechanized infantry assaults. During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2003 to 2021, combined arms evolved to address urban environments, where insurgents employed improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and ambushes to negate conventional advantages. In Iraq's urban battles, such as the 2008 fight in , U.S. forces integrated armored units like tanks with in vehicles, providing mutual protection against rocket-propelled grenades and explosively formed penetrators while forces conducted targeted raids to disrupt insurgent networks. IED countermeasures, including route clearance teams with mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles and electronic jammers, enabled advances supported by precision airstrikes and , reducing convoy vulnerabilities and allowing combined arms teams to clear dense neighborhoods. In Afghanistan, similar adaptations saw partnering with Afghan units for village stability operations, using insertions, drone surveillance, and indirect fires to counter IED threats in rugged terrain, though urban pockets like in 2010 highlighted the need for rapid integration of engineering assets to breach barriers and secure supply lines. These operations underscored the shift toward counterinsurgency-focused combined arms, where provided intelligence and to support conventional maneuvers against asymmetric threats. The ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War since 2014 has forced rapid adaptations in combined arms amid high-attrition warfare, particularly through the integration of drones, artillery, and infantry to counter fortified defenses. Ukrainian forces have employed first-person-view drones for real-time targeting, guiding artillery strikes on Russian positions and enabling infantry assaults with minimal exposure, as seen in the 2022 Kharkiv counteroffensive where such tactics reclaimed over 12,000 square kilometers. In response to Russian electronic warfare jamming, adaptations include low-cost drone swarms combined with Western-supplied precision artillery like HIMARS systems, which have disrupted logistics and command nodes, allowing infantry to exploit gaps in attritional battles like Bakhmut. Russian efforts, conversely, rely on massed artillery barrages supported by infantry and limited drone reconnaissance, but poor coordination has led to high casualties—estimated at over 1.5 million combined (including killed and wounded) as of mid-2025—highlighting the challenges of sustaining combined arms in prolonged positional fighting. Despite these successes, combined arms faces significant challenges in modern conflicts. Logistical strains in hybrid wars, blending conventional and irregular tactics, often overwhelm supply chains; for instance, in , ammunition shortages have forced rationing of artillery fires, limiting sustained operations despite drone enhancements. Interoperability issues in coalitions complicate execution, as differing communication systems and doctrines—evident in exercises—can delay joint maneuvers and increase vulnerability to cyber disruptions. Ethical concerns with autonomous systems, such as loitering munitions used extensively in , raise questions about accountability in targeting decisions and the risk of unintended civilian casualties, prompting calls for international guidelines on lethal autonomous weapons.

References

  1. https://www.atec.army.mil/otc/ADP3-0.pdf
  2. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/combat-studies-institute/csi-books/house.pdf
  3. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA435929.pdf
  4. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1132209.pdf
  5. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/ARN43326-FM_3-0-000-WEB-1.pdf
  6. https://warontherocks.com/2022/05/the-changing-character-of-combined-arms/
  7. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2018/Chaos/
  8. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA563054.pdf
  9. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2016-Online-Exclusive-Articles/German-Mission-Orders/
  10. https://www.ausa.org/articles/multi-domain-battle-joint-combined-arms
  11. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm34-1/ch5.htm
  12. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA264348.pdf
  13. https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publications/MCRP%203-16C%20TTP%20for%20Fire%20Support%20for%20the%20Combined%20Arms%20Commander.pdf
  14. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA284084.pdf
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA161788.pdf
  16. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1022094.pdf
  17. https://api.army.mil/e2/c/downloads/2022/08/03/b633bd32/infantry-branch-da-pam-600-3-1dec2021.pdf
  18. https://rdl.train.army.mil/catalog-ws/view/100.ATSC/9B9879F3-F213-4CD7-9D20-8D4520E8D38E-1397219978180/fm3_09.pdf
  19. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_34.pdf
  20. https://www.academia.edu/6816241/Notes_on_the_Neo_Assyrian_Siege_Shield_and_Chariot
  21. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/military-history-and-science/assyrian-military-history
  22. https://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/saao/aebp/downloads/fuchs_ohcc_2011.pdf
  23. https://www.academia.edu/9198647/The_use_and_development_of_Classical_Greek_Light_infantry_and_an_investigation_into_the_cause_of_the_lack_of_documentation_during_490_404BCE
  24. https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.12.55/
  25. https://minds.wisconsin.edu/bitstream/handle/1793/46588/Kochom.pdf?sequence=2
  26. https://www.academia.edu/11568324/The_Roman_Republican_Army_Adaptability_in_Warfare
  27. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004715066/BP000019.xml
  28. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/macedonias-elite-companion-cavalry-under-alexander-the-great/
  29. https://edwebcontent.ed.ac.uk/sites/default/files/atoms/files/the_military_revolution_-_what_were_philip_iis_reforms_of_the_macedonian_military_and_how_revolutionary_were_they.pdf
  30. https://people.computing.clemson.edu/~jmarty/projects/lowLatencyNetworking/papers/EmergingApplicationSystems/SwarmingAndFutureofWarfare-RAND.pdf
  31. https://www.academia.edu/39511016/Battle_of_Rocroi
  32. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/241429
  33. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA378251.pdf
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235013556_Gustavus_Adolphus_Father_of_Combined_Arms_Warfare
  35. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40920603
  36. https://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/schilling/pdfs/frederick.pdf
  37. https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/frederick-the-great-at-leuthen-the-oblique-order/
  38. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1111835.pdf
  39. https://battlefieldanomalies.com/napoleonic-wars/the-battle-of-austerlitz/
  40. https://www.napoleon.org/en/history-of-the-two-empires/articles/the-battle-of-austerlitz-and-the-principles-of-war/
  41. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1137&context=ljh
  42. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1286&context=history-in-the-making
  43. https://www.reenactor.ru/ARH/PDF/Wawro.pdf
  44. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09683445231193878
  45. https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/77-2.pdf
  46. https://www.benning.army.mil/Armor/eARMOR/content/Historical/Cranston_Exper.html
  47. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1098180.pdf
  48. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1173645.pdf
  49. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/the-right-division-for-the-fight-force-design-and-force-structure-lessons-from-the-cold-war/
  50. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA184718.pdf
  51. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA194151.pdf
  52. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA202888.pdf
  53. https://history.army.mil/portals/143/Images/Publications/catalog/101-21.pdf
  54. https://armyhistory.org/find-fix-and-finish-firepower-maneuver-and-the-evolution-of-infantry-combat-in-vietnam/
  55. https://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/p/2005/CMH_2/www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/vietnam/mounted/chapter4.htm
  56. https://sofmag.com/king-of-battle-u-s-armys-field-artillery-in-vietnam/
  57. https://www.ausa.org/publications/1973-arab-israeli-war-insights-multi-domain-operations
  58. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1030385.pdf
  59. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/reconstitution-under-fire-insights-from-the-1973-yom-kippur-war/
  60. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reprints/2010/RAND_RP1413.pdf
  61. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2018/08/the-militarys-search-for-innovation.html
  62. https://prhome.defense.gov/portals/52/documents/rfm/readiness/docs/adl_stratplan.pdf
  63. http://www.dodccrp.org/files/Alberts_NCW.pdf
  64. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html
  65. https://cepa.org/comprehensive-reports/the-evolution-of-russian-hybrid-warfare-executive-summary/
  66. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2859&context=parameters
  67. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1800/RR1820/RAND_RR1820.pdf
  68. https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-8-6.pdf
  69. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2600/RRA2642-5/RAND_RRA2642-5.pdf
  70. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104470/mq-9-reaper/
  71. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2014/af/2014mq9reaperuas.pdf?ver=2019-08-22-110545-110
  72. https://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/4299458/marine-corps-initiates-drone-task-force-summits-to-accelerate-uas-lethality/
  73. https://www.alssa.mil/Portals/9/Documents/mttps/auo_2022.pdf
  74. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11353
  75. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1161642.pdf
  76. https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/CDR-Content/Articles/Article-View/Article/1136055/convergence-of-cyberspace-operations-and-electronic-warfare-effects/
  77. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/JA-25/Achieved-Overmatch/Achieved-Overmatch-ua.pdf
  78. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1184745.pdf
  79. https://www.diu.mil/latest/department-of-defense-successfully-deploys-commercial-ai-solutions-for
  80. https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/SECAF/AutonomousHorizons.pdf
  81. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA307344.pdf
  82. https://www.benning.army.mil/armor/eARMOR/content/issues/2015/JUL_SEP/3Jennings_Starry15.pdf
  83. https://www.csis.org/analysis/seizing-initiative-ukraine-waging-war-defense-dominant-world
  84. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2025/Lessons-in-Reconstitution/
  85. https://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2025/jun/22/one-million-and-counting-russian-casualties-hit-milestone-in-ukraine-war
  86. https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-battlefield-woes-ukraine
  87. https://www.csis.org/analysis/lessons-ukraine-conflict-modern-warfare-age-autonomy-information-and-resilience
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.