The Combined Arms Dilemma

The Combined Arms Dilemma

 There is still a tendency in each separate unit . . . to be a one-handed puncher. By that I mean that the rifleman wants to shoot, the tanker to charge, the artilleryman to fire. . . . That is not the way to win battles. If the band played a piece first with the piccolo, then with the brass horn, then with the clarinet, and then with the trumpet, there would be a hell of a lot of noise but no music. To get harmony in music each instrument must support the others. To get harmony in battle, each weapon must support the other. Team play wins.
General George S. Patton Jr.

King Philip IV of Macedonia professionalized, trained, and improved the Macedonian army. He equipped his phalanx with longer spears and trained his light troops alongside the hoplites and cavalry. He integrated the hoplites, skirmishers, and cavalry into a combined-arms force. This was a unique concept that revolutionized warfare, allowing his son, Alexander the Great, to become one of the most dominant generals ever. 

The Romans would later institutionalize a modular, combined-arms approach and would create the greatest Empire that the world had ever seen. 

What is the Combined Arms Dilemma?

The entire purpose of the combined arms dilemma is to present the enemy not just with a problem but with a dilemma (who would have thought?)-- a no-win situation. It uses all available means to present an unwinnable scenario for the enemy. 

When in a fight, you do not just want to throw jabs, but you want to present the enemy with a suite of options for his demise. Trying to defend against jabs, hooks, cuts, teeps, roundhouse kicks, takedowns, and more creates problems and creates gaps. If you throw enough punches to the liver, he will lower his guard, allowing you to hit him in the face. If you hit his face enough, he will raise his guard, allowing you to hit him in the liver. 

Similarly, in war, when facing an entrenched enemy, you assault with infantry. As the enemy reacts to the advancing infantry, they expose themselves to indirect fire and close air support, forcing them to take cover, allowing the infantry to advance. The enemy must react to either the infantry or the artillery, or they will be destroyed, but reacting to one exposes them to the other. 

This is what the combined arms dilemma is. It presents the enemy with multiple threats and forces them into a dilemma: they must choose to focus on one threat while the other kills them. MDCP 1 defines the combined arms dilemma as "the full integration of arms in such a way that to counteract one, the enemy must become more vulnerable to another."

Modern tactics are combined arms tactics. Combining the effects of infantry, armor, indirect fire, and aviation creates the greatest possible effect against the enemy. The strengths of the arms complement and reinforce each other. At the same time, the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of each arm are protected or offset by the capabilities of the other. 

Five Dimensional Combined Arms

Combined arms across five dimensions means using all available means to confront the enemy with multifaceted, reinforcing, and rapidly shifting dilemmas at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels to shatter his cohesion, corrupt his decision-making, and increase his friction. 

Multifaceted

The classic example of combining direct and indirect kinetic lethal fires to present the enemy with a dilemma holds but is no longer sufficient. Most enemy forces will have multiple options, not just two. Multiple enemy courses of action must be confronted with multiple friendly capabilities so that his reaction, any reaction, will expose a critical vulnerability to a friendly capability.

Reinforcing

Combined-arms dilemmas must be developed in depth. Enemies can choose a course of action, come what may, and "push through" a dilemma presented by one of our arms. If this is the case, his reward must be another layer of dilemma presented by still another capability. 

Rapidly Shifting

We cannot present a dilemma to an enemy and then wait to see the effect. We must be able to adroitly shift multiple dilemmas so that the enemy is confronted not just with a pattern of dilemmas but with a kaleidoscope thereof. By the time he has gained situation awareness, the situation has already changed. Rapidly shifting from maneuver to maneuver contributes to both combat power and combined arms dilemmas.

Multifaceted, reinforcing, and rapidly shifting combined-arms operations require the ability to fight and to generate intelligence to identify surfaces and gaps, while simultaneously protecting friendly surfaces and gaps, in order to drive maneuver. Moreover, five-dimensional combined arms must be performed simultaneously at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. This means that individual enemy units are vulnerable to multiple friendly capabilities, the enemy's campaign plan is in disarray or puts them at a disadvatnage, and the very act of confronting our forces threatens their ends. 

Implications

The implications of the expanding character of combined arms are many, but none more important than the need to fuse more forms of combat arms support. The nature of combined arms has not changed; it remains about the mutual and reinforcing effects of numerous capabilities. Its character, though, is to employ all types of warfare, with new and innovative applications of artillery and aviation fires in support of maneuver. Fire support coordination at every level focuses on coordinating maneuver, artillery, and aviation, but must now include additional capabilities.