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 like
Epaminondas against the
Spartan army in the
battle of Leuctra.
Philip II of Macedon and
Alexander the Great 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 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. 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. Kelly DeVries uses the Merriam-Webster definition of combat "as a general military engagement". 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 15th to 17th centuries Generally the savanna cavalries of
West Africa used a combined arms approach, seldom operating without supporting infantry. 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 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 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. 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.
20th-century developments First World War 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. 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 In World War II combined arms was a fundamental part of some operational doctrines like
Heinz Guderian's
Blitzkrieg,
Cold War years 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. 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. 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.
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.
Post Cold War 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 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. ==See also==