Talk:Combined arms

Untitled
Nice work, 119. I was concerned about the focus on modern US doctrine, but your sections clarify that that isn't the whole of the concept. Hopefully we can get some more examples plugged in, including some more historical ones. &mdash; B.Bryant 21:06, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Time gap
What about combined arms between the period of the American Revolution and the Vietnam War? As the article stands, it has a gap of 200 years between those times where there's no mention of combined arms. Kevin 23:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference to the battle of Cambrai as an example of combined arms is erroneous. The write up on battle of Cambrai specifically says it is NOT an example of combined arms. Try Battle of Hamel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.63.71 (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Light mobile troops
The use of light mobile troops in bringing about decisive action next saw application during the American Civil War where both sides combined the speed of cavalry and the firepower of the infantry to use mounted infantry in conducting deep raids into the enemy rear, sabotaging the logistics (often railway lines) to affect the supply of frontline troops.

The need for manoeuvre was emphasized by the American Civil War, and was used very effectively by the Prussian General Staff to combine the strategic use of railways with the new firepower of quick-firing ordnance and small arms to defeat France in 1871.

I have removed the above text from the article for several reasons.
 * The first is that this article is about the use of combined arms as a term of art. It is not about types of troops or the logistics of how they are moved.
 * The second is that it shows a lack of historical knowledge about military history and innovation. For example Edward, the Black Prince on his Chevauchée was using the tactics described in these paragraphs (he had with him mounted arches). Cromwell's famous cavalry raid into Oxfordshire in pre-dates the American Civil War by 200 years, and dragoons ("mounted infantry") were common in Europe by the 1640s.

-- PBS (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Intermixed musketeers and pikemen
During the late Middle Ages in Western Europe, fighting men were principally organized on the basis of a combined arms team, or a Lance. The Lance consisted of a landholder and the men in his direct service: the men he rode to war with. The classic example of a Lance, as in the royal French and their opposing Burgundian forces, featured one noble heavy cavalryman, commonly known as a Knight, supported by at least two Sergeants (professional soldiers, as opposed to gentry, who carried similar arms as knights, only lighter and cheaper), two mounted archers, and between two and six valets or squires, non-combatant support troops in the service of the knight.

As the vast majority of Medieval European warfare consisted of performing raids and long-range patrols, the lance was an important method of providing shock effect, ranged firepower, and logistical support for a knightly retinue out for plunder. For the rare occurrence of a set piece battle, the most senior of the gentry would break up the lances, organizing the men into the more familiar en bloc formation of individual arms: sergeants dismounting to form the main battle line with archers and crossbowmen in support.

The knights would remain mounted and act as scouts, flank defense, and in rare instances, the main frontal assault force. The Sergeants, also known as Men-At-Arms, were principally professional soldiers of common birth, although this was not always the case. As the number of truly professional soldiers was very low, the Lances were often supplemented by large numbers of drafted peasants, local militia and mercenaries.

The shortcomings of early firearms forced the Spanish Army to adopt the combined arms tercio. The slow firing arquebusers being protected by pikemen and the cumbersome pikemen in turn protected by agile sword and buckler men. The success of the tercio inspired similar formations and tactics being adopted by the armies of other nations.

For example the English New Model Army consisted of intermixed musketeers and pikemen forming a base of manoeuvre for cavalry.

The massed tercio declined with improvements in artillery, for smaller more flexible units. As muskets improved, the ratio of pikes to muskets declined until with the invention of the bayonet, their number was reduced to a handful of shortened partisans which were retained only as badges of rank.

I have removed the above block of text from the article for two reasons it is totally unsourced, so if any of it is to be put back in to the article it should only be done if sources are added see WP:CHALLENGE and WP:BURDEN.

The second reason which is more pertinent it mixes up the concept of "combined arms" a term of art for an armed force consisting of two or more of the of following arms: infantry, artillery and cavalry/armour and since 1914 aircraft.

The use of the term "combined arms" for different weapons usage intermixed within a unit, such as the intermixed musketeers and pikemen in infantry regiments, until the bayonet made the pike redundant, or soldiers such as dragoons who rode horses and could dismount to fight with muskets, is not what "combined arms" means in the context of this article. Arms in this context does not mean weapons, but the military disciplines/specializations as reflected in the old German ranks such as general of the artillery, general of the cavalry, and general of the infantry. -- PBS (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Should contrast Combined Arms with Strategic Warfare
Guys, I'm no expert so I'm not gonna try an edit, but here's something I know:

The doctrine of combined arms is a concept that is the opposite of what we today call Strategic Warfare. When we say strategic warfare, it means the employment of a single weapon system, or force armed with but a single weapon system, to attain victory. Probably the first such strategic campaign was the contest in WWI between the U-boat and the RN and UK merchant fleets. The Germans were using that one weapon -- the submarine -- to strangle an entire country into submission.

The next strategic weapon was the aerial bomber. It was believed by experts in several nations that fleets of bombers raining bombs on civilian targets would compel a surrender. All by itself with no assistance from other armed forces. Today, of course, most everyone believes that the ballistic missile tipped with thermonuclear warheads will be able to utterly destroy an enemy without assistance.

This is in contrast to traditional armed forces, like armies and navies, which must call upon the services of a variety of weapon systems to accomplish their missions. These are Combined Arms. This article should emphasize the difference between these two very different concepts of warfare.Wikkileaker (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Strategic warfare is level of warfare, one above Operational warfare; it's war at its largest scope, ancient to modern, regardless of what weapon or weapons are used. Combined arms is about versatility of weapons and tactics, regardless of scope of warfare.  I know of no relationships between these to compare.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting William Lind
Lind is objectively a hack who should never be used as a source for anything. Isn't there a better definition out there that will allow us to eliminate this reference to a man who was on the wrong side of the defense reforms of the 1980s? 2600:4040:2282:5700:69CC:8858:3382:29FF (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2023 (UTC)