Ukraine update: What are combined arms, and why are they so hard?

This post was originally published on this site

You’ll hear “combined arms” thrown around a lot by war analysts. It’s the ability to combine infantry, armor, artillery, aviation, engineering, and support units to successfully prosecute a war. You’ll see people like me laugh at Russians for throwing unsupported infantry in this attack, then unsupported armor in that other attack. So in a way, this is easy to explain. But really, no one has done a better job of really driving home the explanation than this guy, a British paratrooper, in this thread.

The thread continues, because we still have air defense, transport aircraft, combat engineers, medical, logistics, mechanics, and so on. Running an army is insanely complex, which is why we’ve long talked about my 15% rule: When looking at the size of the army, only 15% shoot stuff. The other 85% support the people who shoot stuff. This is what the officers’ tent looks like, as the commanders of all these components work together to devise their battle plans:

These disparate components are deadly on their own, but vulnerable. Get them to work together, and you have an effective fighting force. Russia can’t pull it off. Who the hell knows what their officers discuss in meetings like the one above. Ukraine really hasn’t needed combined arms thus far—playing defense is much easier than going on the offensive. Hopefully all that NATO training the last eight years has gotten them ready for the inevitable future counterattacks. 

Let’s revisit this story, when 40 American special forces and Marines held off 500 mostly Russian and Syrian Wagner mercenaries somewhere in the Syrian desert. The Russian forces, including 27 armored vehicles and artillery, hit the American outpost at 10 PM with everything in one apparent frontal assault. After 15 minutes of trying to talk the assailants into retreating, the Americans unleashed. 

First came waves of Reaper drones, F-22 stealth fighter jets, F-15E Strike Fighters, B-52 bombers, AC-130 gunships, and AH-64 Apache helicopters. The air component. Meanwhile, a 16-person reaction force in armored personnel carriers sped toward the outpost to reinforce the 24 Americans under assault. So 40, facing an enemy 500 strong.

A handful of Marines ran ammunition to machine guns and Javelin missile launchers scattered along the berms and wedged among the trucks. Some of the Green Berets and Marines took aim from exposed hatches. Others remained in their trucks, using a combination of thermal screens and joysticks to control and fire the heavy machine guns affixed on their roofs.

A few of the commandos, including Air Force combat controllers, worked the radios to direct the next fleet of bombers flying toward the battlefield. At least one Marine exposed himself to incoming fire as he used a missile guidance computer to find targets’ locations and pass them on to the commandos calling in the airstrikes.

When the dust settled, 200 to 300 Russians and Syrians lay dead. Not a single American was hurt. Not even one boo-boo! That’s what combined arms is. In this case, light armor, infantry, and air took care of the situation. Had artillery been nearby, they would’ve joined the action, likely shortening the battle significantly. 

That’s what wins battles and wars, and Russia simply can’t pull it off. It’s hard, it’s complicated, it requires quality leadership and the resources to practice, evaluate, and practice again, But large training exercises are expensive, no one can grift off them, and a general might look bad if something goes wrong. Meanwhile, American soldiers drill this so extensively, coordinating during the extreme stress of combat was like muscle memory. 

The best Russia can do is snatch men off the streets of Donbas, up to the age of 60, and throw them at Ukrainian positions in human waves. More of that in a future update.