Understanding Combined Arms Warfare

Designed to support the U.S. Army Captains Career Course, “Understanding Combined Arms Warfare” defines and outlines the important aspects of modern combined arms operations. This is not a complete history of combined arms warfare. It is intended to highlight the most important aspects of the subject.
The beginning of the documentary establishes a common understanding of combined arms warfare by discussing doctrinal and equipment developments in World War I. The second part compares the development of French and German Army mechanization during the interwar period and describes how each country fared during the Battle of France in 1940. The film concludes by showing how the United States applied combined arms operations in the European Theater in World War II.
Setting the Stage
Defining Combined Arms Warfare - 00:37
Pre-20th Century Combined Arms - 01:15
Evolution of Combined Arms in World War 1
“The Loss of Maneuver” - 02:24
The transition to static warfare - 02:24
The German Elastic Defense / Allied initial attempts to break it - 04:32
“Search for a Solution” - 07:42
Chemical Warfare (Gas) - 08:20
Aviation (Aircraft) - 08:41
Armor (Tanks) - 09:05
“The Answer is Found” - 10:31
The German Spring Offensive - 10:57
Details of the German Offensive, Combined Arms Tactics - 11:49
The Transition to Mechanization ***
“The Interwar Period: France and Germany” - 14:36
Technological innovations - 15:25
French developments - 16:17
German developments - 18:56
“Combined Arms in Action: The Battle of France, 1940” - 21:49
United States Combined Arms in World War 2 (ETO)
“The U.S. Searches to Counter Blitzkrieg in Europe” - 24:41
“The Birth of the U.S. Tank Destroyer” - 27:43
“The U.S. Pools Combat Power” - 30:36
“The U.S. Divisions Keep their Pools” - 32:21
“The Balanced Commands” - 35:12
“U.S. Fire Support” - 36:51
Conclusion: Integration of the Warfighting Functions - 38:47
Credits - 39:46
*** Note: Although the UK made significant contributions to the development of combined arms doctrine during the interwar period, they were intentionally excluded. This allows the film to focus on the extremes of French and German doctrine at the conclusion of that period.

[@ArmyUniversityPress]

Thank you for watching! To view more of our films, check out our full collection at www.armyupress.army.mil/Films/Feature-Film-Catalog/

[@wecanwatersports4151]

There is no understanding. Only getting your ass kicked. TANKERS LEAD THE WAY 👊😎

[@BaronVonHobgoblin]

Will there be a follow up episode that covers the evolution of Mission Command?

[@randymasten9183]

That is an excellent idea

[@dmitriikovalchuck4733]

Thumbs up, that'll be good

[@johnpickett3137]

Great idea!

[@df8340]

The Battle of Amiens was the first large scale combined arms warfare that people would recognize. Light tanks breaking though lines with infantry and heavier tanks following, air power and “modern” communication

[@petergarrone8242]

The Australian general Monash was a key commander on the allied side. I wonder at his combined arms approach. He seems to be a bit of a control freak with his clockwork planning, going against the idea of allowing subordinate commanders to make independent decisions. He also regarded the infantry as the ultimate arm which all other arms were to support.

[@desperatelyseekingrealnews]

Nah everybody knows blitzkrieg , the invasion of Poland and Europe

[@fatdaddy1996]

Desperately seeking real news. No, you're wrong. The battle of Aliens was an excellent example of combined arms warfare.

[@desperatelyseekingrealnews]

@@fatdaddy1996 yeah I agree only most people have never heard of it but everybodys heard of Blitzkrieg

[@alganhar1]

@@petergarrone8242 Monash was superb, as was Currie (the commander of the Canadian Corps). What annoys me is even in the British view, "our generals were useless'' And the reality is no, actually, the majority were not. Yes, Monash and Currie were good, BUT, and this is a REALLY important but, they were CORPS commanders, NOT ARMY commanders. Which meant when it came to actual full army training... they had fuck all say. And the Brits had a bunch of extremely good Corps and Divisional commanders who are literally not remembered... because they are Brits. No other reason. I have a literal fucking LIST of them.... Britain, without the Canadians and Australians had 60 Divisions on the Western Front. Believe it or not a significant number of those commanders actually knew what they were doing. Haig was not a tactical commander, he learned that eventually. What he was however, was a superb Army ORGANISER. It took time for him to trust his commanders, but we are talking about a guy that ordered four HUNDRED tanks off the drawing board. He did not even know if they would work. He was also the guy that demanded the RFC, later to become the RAF, strafe and bomb front line troops. Those missions tended to go to Sopwith Camel Pilots..... General Eisenhower is, quite rightly highly regarded. Because he kept a multinational force operational and mission capable. Haig did that in WWI. Was Eisenhower the best battlefield General in the world? Hell no. But he was a superb organiser, and he kept his Armies together. Was Haig the best battlefield general in the world? Hell no. But he literally built an army from scratch. And kept it together. You do not have to be a tactical genius to be a great General... Tactics do not win wars... Strategy does...

[@marcobassini3576]

The first time the US tanks came in contact with the German panzers it was a total disaster for the Americans. Although they arrived in full strength and outnumbered the Axis forces in North Africa (which were retreating from El Alamein), field marshal Erwin Rommel initially inflicted them humiliating defeats in Tunisia. Then they slowly learned from their errors, and everything was facilitated by their enormous superiority in available material.

[@christopherpearce2831]

Veterans against noobs

[@badlaamaurukehu]

​@@christopherpearce2831 Yup

[@MWM-dj6dn]

I thank you for your great effort in providing accurate, useful and wonderful information on your esteemed channel. A thousand greetings of respect, appreciation and pride. I wish you success and progress in your wonderful work. Much respect

[@GEOsustainable]

As a veteran, I wish this level of training was taught to the ground troop. Although we pick it up 'real quick' when the sh_t goes down, we are clueless until then. Basic Training should be extended, considerably, to teach this. What else have we got to do BUT make the best trained individual soldier in the world?

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

Most soldiers, even infantry never see combat and certainly never experience attacking.

[@GEOsustainable]

@@Ukraineaissance2014 You have made my point for me. True.

[@thoraero]

Great in-depth explanation. Thank you.

[@KenshiroPlayDotA]

28:40 : Isn't that McNair's opinion rather than the Army or Armored Force's position ? Nicholas Moran, aka The Chieftain, addressed that in his Myths of American Armor, Tankfest Northwest 2015 video. At one point, he points to FM 17-33 of September 1942, which reads on page 107 : "Tank versus Tank action (See FM 17-10) - Attacking tanks frequently encounter hostile tank units unexpectedly. At other times they may be required to attack hostile tanks deliberately in order to break up an attack or a counterattack." Another counterpoint is the firepower provided by main guns on U.S. medium tanks at various points in WW2 ; in '42-'43, the M3 and M4 had 75mm main guns with a length of 40 calibers that would overmatch the 7.5cm KwK L/24 of the Panzer IV Ausf. D through F1 that would be the one of the most common enemy tanks encountered by the U.S. Army, the other being the totally outmatched Panzer IIIs. The comparison then probably progressively switched to the Panzer IV's favor, or at least evened the odds, as the Ausf. F2 debuted the KwK 40 L/43 gun, while the Ausf. G introduced thicker 80mm armor for the front hull, at least for frontal engagement at relatively long ranges. This would be addressed with the 76mm variants of the M4, with the M4A1(76)W entering production in January 1944, and being deployed to Britain already in April. Seeing no immediate battle need and not wanting to create training and logistics problems with the upcoming invasion, it was decided to leave those tanks in depots, with the 76mm Shermans being deployed to France starting in July after encountering more armored German tanks such as the Panther. Note the timeline of 76mm Sherman availability tracked pretty closely the M18 Hellcat's introduction ; T70 prototypes were sent to Italy in May, and M18s entered combat on the ETO in July. Both the 76mm Shermans and M18 used the same gun, and the latter was a tank destroyer. Not to mention the 76mm gun on the M4 and M18 had similar, if not identical, performance to the 3-inch gun on the M10, another tank destroyer. Otherwise, excellent video.

[@Ukraineaissance2014]

I agree with nicholas moran entirely

[@chost-059]

Very good video, love learning how lessons were learned and solutions were made and later evolved with each nation

[@fpvillegas9084]

The title of this video should be Combined Arms in WW1 and WW2.

[@jamesbohlman4297]

This was very informative, thank you.

[@struanmcgrath1619]

Great work as always.

[@nectarromeokilo4509]

great video , well explained.

[@MWM-dj6dn]

A thousand greetings, great respect and admiration for your esteemed and wonderful channel, which provided accurate and useful information. I wish you lasting success. A wonderful work and a great effort that deserves pride, appreciation and pride. My utmost respect and appreciation to you

[@evilfingers4302]

Excellent Presentation.

[@massimodimarzio4821]

Nice job! It could be good to deepen the role of sustainment in combined arms!

[@MWM-dj6dn]

A wonderful channel that deserves a thousand thousand greetings, great admiration and greater respect. Your esteemed channel is full of very accurate and useful information. Your effort is remarkable and great. I wish you lasting success. And I write to you with the utmost frankness and respect, and in the form of hope ((translate into Arabic)) The number of your followers will increase greatly. I am absolutely confident that you are interested in providing benefit to everyone without exception. My utmost respect, appreciation and pride to you, gentlemen

[@dougmoore5252]

Excellent very interesting, thank you!

[@Garshock1]

Great video

[@jeffwenger5610]

What a fantastic historical WW2 presentation!

[@norad_clips]

Fantastic summary!

[@MWM-dj6dn]

The greatest words of respect, praise and appreciation I dedicate to you for this wonderful and distinguished work Thank you for your great giving and effort I wish you lasting success. My utmost respect and appreciation

[@dynamicascension981]

This was really good

[@alganhar1]

Short barrages were not the only reason the ground was less torn up. Part of the reason yes, but not the only reason, nor even the primary reason. The primary reason is one very few are even aware of, both sides had come up with new fuses for their artillery shells. These new fuses could be set for contact detonation that WAS actually as close to contact detonation as was possible. Almost no time between contact and the shell exploding. This was actually pretty damned important as prior to this even the best fuses had a time delay between contact and detonation that allowed the shell to bury itself into the ground before detonating, thus creating the heavily cratered ground we associate with WWI. The new contact capable fuses vastly reduced that. Add in shorter but more intense whirlwind barrages and you get the far less cratered ground that was typical of the last year of WWI. They could still set those shells for a delay, useful for specific targets like bunkers for example, but on the whole in the last year of the war most shells with the new fuses were set for contact detonation.

[@shannonmcstormy5021]

The World Wars (1 and 2) offered teaching examples of overall tactics. You have generals mired in fighting the last war (basically all sides in WW1). Then in WW2, France was fighting the last war with the Maginot Line while the Nazi's were fighting the next war (Blitzkrieg). This last is the worst situation to be in. At the very least, you want the Generals fighting the war in front of them. Ideally, you want to be fighting the next war, but you certainly don't want to be fighting the last war and be the only "side" doing so, nor fighting an enemy that is fighting the next war.

[@fatdaddy1996]

The last wars before WW1 were the Boer war, Franco-prussian war and ACW. No Generals were fighting like that after 1914.

[@DigitalCodeOwl]

I cant wait!!!!

[@schlirf]

Smashing the like button here!

[@tobeforgottenisworsethande8995]

Now this is some useful information. 😮

[@Leon_Portier]

Very interesting

[@user-pr3iy7no5v]

Finally it’s time

[@jdocean1]

Good video.

[@MWM-dj6dn]

wish you continuous success . A very beautiful and wonderful work that deserves admiration and all appreciation. Never stop.. It would be great if all your works are translated into Arabic. I wish you well and happiness. Thank you for your exceptional and distinguished effort in presenting this very beautiful work

[@tannerrugg3480]

I love combine arms warfare one of the most stressful strategic ideas ever

[@terminusest5902]

On the 4th July at the French village of Hamel Australian, British and US forces under General Sir John Monash they demonstrated a successful combined arms battle which combined many tactics working together. The plan for the battle had 90 minutes to capture all of the objectives. The final target was captured in 93 minutes. Information of this attack was given to allied forces. In August 8th the allies launched a large and very successful combined arms assault against German lines. This was followed by many more successful attacks. Logistics remained a problem for the allies. The Australian used tanks and aircraft to supply's and ammunition across no mans land. This allowed infantry to hold o objectives that were captured. Within range of protective allied artillery.

[@curtpangracs8684]

I hope there will be a follow-on production that actually addresses modern combined arms warfare instead of the history behind it. There is so much missing from current application of combined arms warfare.

[@phil20_20]

I learned all this playing Command and Conquer. 😂

[@Shvetsario]

World of Tanks too for what the strengths and weaknesses of tank types are

[@smartkhangaming8753]

Call to arms gates of hell is the best

[@antonleimbach648]

The idiocy of our Army doctrine in 1939 and Navy Doctrine up until Pearl Harbor in 1941 never ceases to amaze me. Both had to be completely restructured and tactics revolutionized. It makes one wonder if we are doing the same thing with our reliance on Aircraft Carriers.

[@LocestSwarmSC831]

I really hope not however tech and drones are advancing so quickly I believe they will be increasingly more vulnerable in the next major war leading to them being used in a much more conservative roll then was intended.

[@fatdaddy1996]

I don't see how Aircraft carriers can operate in a world of hypersonic missiles?

[@coochykilla]

Americans are always fighting the last war

[@edsteadham4085]

How much was American use of tanks dictated by the fact shipping them across the Atlantic necessitated smaller but more numerous in numbers. I don't know if that was the case but would appreciate anyone with more knowledge to weigh in on this idea.

[@lyubeh]

search for Nicholas Morans’ channel: “The_Chieftain”. He has uploaded some great presentations about the US armed forces preparations to WW2

[@christopherpearce2831]

The amerìcan tanks were designed to be small enough to fit on the railway carriges of the time

[@davidsabillon5182]

Dr House! ❤

[@ferdinandocastaldo5773]

top!!

[@guydreamr]

versatile!!

[@len2063]

Nice video about stone, paper and scissors game.

[@ajich782]

the video production makes it look like it's a tutorial from a 2000s video game (like red alert)

[@juanzulu1318]

Isnt the modern battalion battle group some kind if pooling?

[@anthonyburke5656]

Why is it that everyone talks about “Combined Arms Warfare” and have since Monash led one in France in WW1 and Rommel wrote his books between the wars. But, absent to a degree Desert Storm 1 (which was unique for various reasons), no Army has been able to pull it off. Armed forces are now so specialised they are nearly incapable of co operating with other arms.

[@english_badminton_history]

Army University Press KZbin Channel has created so many invaluable videos thanks to its expertise and professionalism. Even though I live in China that is far far away from the US, I'm so in love with these insightful videos. Thank you, AUP And thank you, Internet and KZbin

[@JinKee]

The Thumbnail looks like it is sponsored by War Thunder: free to play now!

[@29PixelStudios]

LETS GOOOOO

[@nadjiguemarful]

I just finished Keegan's Face of Battle so this is just where he left off lol

[@jlpeyret]

Why do I have the idea that this video’s current interest is largely due to an ongoing lesson we are getting in how NOT to wage combined arms warfare in 2020s? ATMs + drones + artillery + satellite imagery - tactical air dominance makes for a fascinating conundrum. But certain armies are failing more than others.

[@333BlkFlagg]

Totally eating this up like a soup sandwich ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@fpvillegas9084]

The video game Panzer General clearly shows this concept 😉👍

[@hehe-jg8zz]

How about the similar blitzkrieg tactic/doctrine that soviets used? I heard they used some of german tactics to break the defense of the germans when they are running back to their country.

[@johnhopkins6260]

32nd Field Artillery Battalion, joined at the hip with 18th Infantry (RCT)... from Sicily to Normandy, And beyond. (uniquely significant was also the proximity fuse) U.S. Artillery profoundly frustrated/terrified the Wehrmacht; hence: "the King of Battle"

[@matthewmorris6378]

29:02 LTG McNair's approach to armor utilization makes me think of the impact of ATGMs on modern tank warfare, with many nations adopting greater number of lighter armed and armored vehicles which cannot stand toe-to-toe with MBTs, such as light tanks and MPFs. I imagine acceleration and proliferation of drones will magnify this shift away from expensive mobile armored systems that are direct-fire resistant because of cost dynamics alone. Technology may make it too hazardous to be on the battlefield altogether.

[@owenbunny4023]

yes.

[@alganhar1]

Really? People such as yourself are ignoring the fact there is a peer on peer war ongoing right now, one in which drones and ATGM's are commonplace. You are also forgetting that DESPITE that the Ukrainians ASKED for AT LEAST 300 Western Main Battle Tanks. These are the guys that literally have THE most experience in peer on peer modern warfare. Over a year of bitter fighting, tens of thousands of military casualties and god knows how many civilian, and they are ASKING for tanks. Hell if we only consider the vulnerability of the platform, then by that metric we have to conclude the Infantry soldier has been obsolete since the first man picked up a rock and bashed a dudes head in with it.... You see the ridiculousness of that metric? The question that people SHOULD be asking is what IS the tanks primary role on the modern Battlefield, and can anything replace it. When you ask those two questions you come up with two answers. The Tanks primary role on the battlefield is NOT anti tank (though that is a vital secondary role), it is mobile, armoured direct fire support for the infantry. And the fact is we have nothing that CAN replace that capability on the battlefield.....

[@owenbunny4023]

@@alganhar1 all just tools for the jobs. You need tanks to attack over the land, you need LAV to maneuver around the mountain, you need amphibias vehicles for contesting the pan pacific region.

[@matthewmorris6378]

@@alganhar1 people such as yourself ignore that tanks and planes have existed for only the last century of human conflict. The concept of a protected frontal assault died with mass-produced gunpowder weapons, and again with 24/7 multi-domain surveillance. As far as your anecdote about infantry... for the cost of a single Abrams you can train and equip over a battalion (300+) of infantry. Its not about vulnerability per se, that can be dealt with through doctrine and strategy. Its about cost dynamics and force disposition. A battalion of infantry can capture and hold a location. A single tank cannot. You want to use the most effective and least wasteful tool to do the job, because there is no such thing as a refund on warfare. Tank assaults do not have a place on this battlefield, as demonstrated by the Russians. We should not be in a hurry to get our toys similarly destroyed. And as to the Ukrainians asking for tanks: they are fighting a huge enemy; any advantage will help their position. Though, I think you might be hard-pressed to convince anyone the tanks AREN'T for frontal assaults, especially after they have repeatedly crossed our line of launching attacks into Russia.

[@A.Versiani]

Excellent content, as usual, but not mention the Soviet part, made this rather incomplete, any way very, informative.

[@Mechanized85]

Doctrine? Let's Go!

[@Stephen-wb3wf]

Jonathan House is the best. Immediate like.

[@jacksteel1539]

Wish they would have actually talked about the eastern front for the first and 2nd world war, seems crazy to me to leave that out as in both wars the most movement happened in the east both times

[@fatdaddy1996]

And German Storm trooper tactics were inspired by the Russian light assault tactics used in the Brusilov offensive.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

The counter

[@SkepticalChris]

Russians who see this video will dismiss it as American propaganda. Ukrainians watching this are taking notes and seeing how they can use this knowledge in battle.

[@Shvetsario]

Lol that's why the Russians failed, also they're too stupid to target important points like highways and roads to cut-off support, for example.

[@dannyzero692]

Combined arms warfare requires much more communication between the branches, seeing as foreign hackers have been tapping into Russian military radios to play Touhou, Gangnam Style and making Amogus shaped visual audio, I’m not confident that they have good communication between the branches. They also fight each other like the Russian commanders and Wagnerites over who gets to suck Putin’s dick, I’m not gonna believe that they’ll ever want to work together.

[@jessehachey2732]

Nah, I think we’re going to be seeing the opposite, NATO allies will be scribbling down furiously on a notepad, taking notes on Ukrainian experience fighting the “modern” RF for some years to come! 🤷🏼‍♂️🇺🇦🌻🇨🇦

[@jacksteel1539]

why would they call this American propaganda

[@christianvincentcostanilla8428]

Back then : Ukraine army is more like Soviet army

[@iivin4233]

Beware of the slight inaccuracies and simplifications in this video. A lot of what is said can be argued to be true but without examining the details, recent decisions like the resurrection of Divisional Artillery in the US may seem like back sliding. A general overview like this also misses the sheer volume of disagreement within militaries, between departments, branches, units and even individuals.

[@MrRugbylane]

2023. Back to square 1 but with drones as can be seen in Ukraine, Close Air Support and Armour is very very limited. One man with a drone and a radio to artillery is King of the Battlefield now

[@fatdaddy1996]

it's the superiority of indirect fire weapons with real time reconnaissance and feed back cycles, over direct fire weapons that makes combined arms theory a questionable doctrine in 2023.

[@MrRugbylane]

@@fatdaddy1996 Thank you Sam! Thats exactly what im observing but you summarised it better. Its a sort of "counter-revolution" in warfare.

[@thelastaustralian7583]

It would have been good for your brilliance at the start of WW1 ! Before us Australians , had been blown to Smithereens !

[@jaihind9462]

Everyebody got blown up in ww1 including many indian martyrs who got promised freedom from tyranny of britain

[@keithmiller4168]

Aussies were hardly the only nation to suffer terrible WW1 losses; however they are unique in still whinging about it every day100+ years later 😂

[@thelastaustralian7583]

@@keithmiller4168 You know why we call 'Yanks ' Septic Tanks ! Because they are the same stuff as their BritshtMasters !

[@henryhbk]

Shouldn’t it be the “US Army captains’ career course”, since it is to upgrade captains, not a course about the career of captains? But otherwise an excellent background briefing on combined arms.

[@aidancreager4095]

Can we get a cyber warfare video?

[@wilfdarr]

"Hope is not a strategy"

[@rudyyu5279]

I'd be interested to know how this excellent video relates to the current conflict in Ukraine.

[@EhEhEhEINSTEIN]

Russians = very bad at it for all their gear Ukrainians = learning quickly but lack equipment

[@coochykilla]

Ukrainians getting blown out because the surveillance drones in the sky show the Russians every time Ukrainians move towards them. As soon as they see a tank or infantry unit coming towards their positions, they just shell Ukrainians with artillery. Until improvements in Maneuver technology advance, we'll continue to see more of the same.

[@nigellawson8610]

A tank destroyer would be very vulnerable to mortars and artillery. Being open topped, it would also be vulnerable to machine gun fire, especially from above. As an assault gun it would be a liability.

[@dannyzero692]

Not all tank destroyers are built equal, you have the M18 Hellcat which were fast and lightly armored while the Jadgpanzers were heavily armored and slower. Assault guns were also needed in times when the infantry encounter heavily fortified enemy positions to soften and suppress them up. Clearly the traditional tank destroyers worked but they quickly got obsolete when MBT could perform everything the tank destroyers can but better. Later tank destroyers of the Cold War were mostly failure like the FV4005 and dedicated ATGM tank destroyers of the Soviets, very few found success.

[@collinbuckley3356]

WOo

[@ce641]

Whats going on with that guy running in the opposite direction of the tanks

[@everybodydothatdinosaur519]

This video is bizarrely slanted, first the germans were not the first to implement combined arms warfare during WWI or WWII, and it wasn't a new concept or idea by the time they started to exploit it. They learned the concept from allies in the first place, and their few successes to it lead to shocking results, but that had little real impact. The reason why the allies won the war was exactly because they had better combined arms warfare. The germans were not particularly good at combined arms warfare save for Rommel, who was largely ignored by a lot of the German military despite his notable successes. While the concept of tank destroyers is a controversial one, it was actually was an implementation of combined arms warfare, as they used a myriad of anti-tank guns on wheels combined with tanks to take on the enemy. Today, the Bradley would fulfill the same role. The hellcat tank destroyer during WWII for example achieved a 2.6 to 1 kill ratio, one of the higher kill ratios of the war, despite being quite poorly armored, exactly as it was implemented correctly. They idea was to pin the enemy down with tanks, and then rush in with lighter tanks to flank them from the side. Which worked extremely well.

[@MrLEATHERFACE83]

🇺🇸🦅🇺🇸

[@bldbar118]

[@geronimomiles312]

Excellent discussion, on a broad level , but It could describe the downside of combined arms distribution though, more than it did. Having plenty of everything everywhere is a good plan. It's like more is better, yep sure is! But if you haven't got enough, say, artillery for everybody , then you start abandoning that aspect of the combined arms. Obviously you don't distribute naval assets like battleships to an inland regiment or restrict close combat support planes to each individual battalion. So really combined arms is balanced with pooled arms in every military that exists, and the differences are really just at what level decisions are made about the disposition of assets, and whether smaller units are familiar working in conjunction with attached complementary capabilities. Certainly one can locally dilute the impact of a weapon system simply by distributing it too widely, or maximize its effect by concentrating that particular function.etc. Pointing at a particular battle does not prove that this 'combined' asset allocation is suitable for all circumstances or that it should be seen as a doctrine ,.. since nobody actually does this in pure form. Conceptually it's fine , but don't expect infantry to be able to run at 45km per hour to keep up with tanks, or vice versa at 2 km per hr.

[@fatdaddy1996]

So you put your infantry in APCs. Then they can travel at tank speed.

[@curtpangracs8684]

You don't "abandon the concept of combined arms" with, say, the lack of artillery. This is where Mission Command comes into play, and REAL military decisions are made. Where can I employ my limited artillery for the most potent effects? Personally, deep fires artillery should ALWAYS be concentrated on C2, support, and counter-battery. Short-range is always positioned forward to support the main objective. Deep fires can shift as needed to support the main effort if losses are taken. But that's just me.

[@roc7880]

Management is not a CEO making good decisions but preparing your people for any kind of sh@t hitting the form. More planning for disasters you have the better your team is at getting through.

[@MeuFilho-EL]

Basically, combined arms warfare is the synch (coordination) of specialized agents to create a competitive advantage (asymmetrical) in a tri, tetra or penta cycle game mechanic. ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/bILYfKOAibqqrbssi=BFxuK8AnKDcWAI7M ) Godspeed

[@SalladLimeParsnip]

Growing up in Europe and being interesed in ww2, until I saw this, I still thought the germans singularly used panzer to to blitzkrieg... kind of.

[@TireSpare]

thank you for the post. Hence, Koreans shall need more diverse forms of military units to counter China. right. Please do place as many THAAD systems around Western Korean unmanned islands as possible. And there will be more than 2wars incoming against China with decades long fights........... Oh my goodness Please do let Koreans get equipped with all AI-controlled robotic armies

[@user-gw4oz1rk3i]

The start of this video, about linear warfare, is evry inacurate. Please Watch other videos for that.

[@user-gw4oz1rk3i]

ABOUT That.

[@kalervolatoniittu2011]

About no other nation having able to concentrate fire of several batteries,isn't true. Check out finnish system created by artillery gen Nenonen

[@owenbunny4023]

one anti tank gun can lock down a field, but you can counter it with mortar

[@MikeHunt-rw4gf]

algorithm

[@napowolf]

It's hilarious they felt the need to dub all foreign materials with stereotypical accents.

[@davidkugel]

I have seen some videos that state the Leopard 2 is superior to the Abrams. If you put 5 Leopards 2s versus 5 Abrams without any support that could be true. But when you realized that the Abrams is just a part of the big picture of US Military Combined Arms the Leopard 2s would be at a great disadvantage. The Leopard 2s would be taken out by Aviation or Aritllery before they got near the Abrams.

[@trnogger]

Except any other force today also uses combined arms, so the 5 Leopard 2s wouldn't act alone either. And the constant competition between the Abrams and Leopard 2 is ridiculous, as both systems were co-developed and share many design principles and even some components. Across the various iterations one may be slightly better than the other and vice versa, but in the end, both are on the same level.

[@ericclausen6772]

We don't pay for real estate twice

[@yakumoyukarina]

Combined Arms Warfare is a pretty good doctrine for it's time. But I see a lot of countries unwilling to let it die even when it became whoefully obsolete in this day and age.

[@fatdaddy1996]

Interesting Stannis, in what ways obsolete?

[@waavycookie7243]

@@fatdaddy1996 yeah I agree. How is it obsolete?

[@chipschannel9494]

Because they are incapable of doing it.

[@aneubeck4053]

This is not correct at all

[@MrJohnverkerk]

A good advert for the American armed forces. Nonetheless, if I was in a belligerent mood, I would most certainly go and pick on someone else. I don;t rate my chances taking those dudes on...

[@joker__butcher8862]

Why you keep rubbing your nips like that😂😂😂 sick video was amped through out

[@lolguytiger45]

The ability of the American armed forces to conduct combined arms operations has seriously atrophied being as they lack modern integrated air defense capabilities, such as those possessed by Russia, and lag behind the Russians in terms of hypersonic weaponry. America has always been a naval power primarily, and really has never been a continental land power. It's good at least that the topic is being discussed now, but it will take a decade at least for the US military to adapt out of the counterinsurgency role that it adopted during the GWOT.

[@wurzelbert84wucher5]

"It was the Germans, who would first employ combined arms warfare on a large scale" Who would have thought ;D

[@enhancedutility266]

Of course that's how the US and Russians were able to modify their military tactics by using German ones after the war including their weapon systems as well

[@18890426]

@@enhancedutility266 So meaning that Germany lost but their combat system won?

[@enhancedutility266]

@@18890426 if it needs to improvements to your overall playbook yes militaries have done that since the beginning of time they will use their conqueror enemies weapons or tactics to improve their own

[@enhancedutility266]

@@18890426 one example is how the Soviet Union took the design from the STG 44 and made it into the AK-47 several years later

[@coochykilla]

@@18890426 Germany lost for lack of materials and manpower, not tactics

[@onegrail9398]

1:50 That's only true for the 1st part of his life.... When Napoleon invaded Russia he is famous for implementing the core system and giving combined arms detachments to each of his marshals.... As he is literally famous for implementing what at the time was "a revolutionary reform" (aka the core system) into his 180,000 man invasion force into russia he is probably the absolute worst person to reference about this..... (unless you actually recognized this fact)

[@onegrail9398]

The modern versions would be the american Brigade Combat Team or the russian Battalion Tactical Group. Russians are currently loosing hard because they took the combined arms unit down to the brigade level. This would have been effective aslong as their troops sustained little to no attrition (and were fighting a much smaller force) but against a near modern army that is globally a top 20 military its trash. On paper the russian BTG claims near parody with an american BCT in firepower (but in practice the NATO style BTC is designed to eat russian BTGs).

[@steve-real]

I hope the Ukrainian army is watching this video.

[@geoffgill5334]

They have taken it to the next level..wait till the weather breaks the orc asskicking starts

[@philodonoghue3062]

Now add drones, laptops …

[@Irondevil34]

You mean the German innovations...

[@christianvincentcostanilla8428]

Today Ukraine army is more like : America army and Britain army and Canada army

[@OneAfricanRace]

Why are my rights to those Arms infringed?

[@akompsupport]

We mourn the loss of Germany.

[@peterschmidt1900]

20:00 "attempted" ... or rather: showed the motorized infantry instead of the horses in all their propaganda footage.

[@loneranger5349]

Funny explanation for tank destroyers. There not suppose to engage tanks Than how could they destroy them. Funniest is how men with no body armor against tanks was OK but couldn't get tank destroyer support because they didn't have enough armor but they had more than the foot soldiers the foot soldiers on their own 🤣 someone come get this old white guy

[@TheRealBillBob]

Eh. Doesn't explain why the USSR was able to mollywhop Germany's 150 division without a combined arms warfare doctrine.

[@commiemeth]

Deep Battle doctrine quite literally is combined arms, hell the modern day Russian BTG is Combined Arms. The entire Kurks to Seelow Heights was one massive string of combined arms maneuvers. CA isn't new it has existed from the days of Philip of Macedon, it's just the organization of such tactics evolved over time not all militaries/civilizations were able to fully make use of it. Oda Nobunaga at Nagashino utilized combined arms in the form of superior maneuver and maximum firepower. Combined Arms as we know it now today, yes the Soviets utilized it starting from Little Saturn all the way to Afghanistan. Deep Battle was first theorized in the Soviet command structure in the 30s, now granted it wasn't always utilized, but during the LATER half of Second World War, yes they definitely utilized it. It's not just a western thing, I have no idea where you got this idea from