Best Military Strategy of its Time

[Redleg]

Ok, who used combined arms first in modern warfare?

Well since the first war to be considered modern warfare happened to be the American Civil War - I would have to say we did.

[Papewaio]

True... just missing tanks and airplanes...

[Kraxis]

Well since the first war to be considered modern warfare happened to be the American Civil War - I would have to say we did.

Hardly right. The modern aspects of the ACW was the industry and totality of eth war, and of course the development of the respective armies.
But in terms of combined arms I would say it wasn't so much the case.
Almost all battles were sluggingmatches between infantry, supported by artillery. That artillery was independant quite often, which was a good thing in the ACW as it could easier find a new spot to fire from.
The cavalry didn't have an integral infantry force with them for obvious reasons. The North did find a way around this by makign their cavalry more like infantry, but still they were not combined with infantry.

And far too often the caavlry had to deal with its objectives alone, and the infantry likewise. It is in fact the opposite of combined arms. It is devided arms.

[Rosacrux redux]

The first combined arms use ever (not in the modern sence though... aircrafts were not invented back then...) is by Alexander the Great. Strategically (since the word strategy was used primarily in this thread, allthough in a wrong content) Alexander was extremely effective too and his use of the terrain, way of cutting off the main supply centers for the Persians, taking Egypt and the Middle East before delivering the decisive blow, dismantling his fleet etc. etc. are all prime examples of strategical choices that allowed the small Greek army to triumph in Asia.

When it comes down to tactics, Alex's thing was quite simple to conceive but hard to achieve... he was very keen on the concept "hitting the strong point of the enemy with the best thing you've got and deliver the decisive blow, while the rest of the enemy forces were pinned by your less mobile forces" but it's realization was extremely complicated and involved the use of many different elements of his army (missile, light and heavy infantry, light and heavy cavalry) in the most affordable possible way.

When talking about tactics, one shouldn't forget the double encirclement of the great Hannibal of Karthago at Cannae, the skewed phalanx of the Theban Pelopidas (copied by, among others, Napoleon, Frederick the Great, Karl Gustav and others). I might think of more ancient uber-tactics later...

[Redleg]

The first combined arms use ever (not in the modern sence though... aircrafts were not invented back then...) is by Alexander the Great. ...

Yes and no - Alexander the Great did use many concepts that were similiar to combined arms warfare. Several older battles were also fought using the combined arms that were availiable during the time period.

And then the question was

Ok, who used combined arms first in modern warfare?

Alexander the Great hardly qualifies when using the term modern warfare.

[Advo-san]

This discussion has such a blurred topic...
1)Define arms.
2)Define combined.
3)Define warfare.
4)Define modern.

[Rosacrux redux]

Alexander is my pet peeve, so... there goes. And seing he was bisexual and quite a party animal, he sure is more modern than some 19th and 20th and even 21st century stiffs, of the "morality uber alles" conglomerate...

And I believe I said

not in the modern sence though... aircrafts were not invented back then...

So...

P.S. Methinks Advo-san is right, in a way...

[Redleg]

This discussion has such a blurred topic..

1)Define arms. - Arms is easy really - its weapons. In the case of modern usage of the term its means weapon types and systems

2)Define combined.- just what the word implies - a combination of types of forces.

3)Define warfare. - again easy - where two opposing forces meet using violence to settle the issue.

4)Define modern. - that one gets tricky - most historians define modern as sometime after the Industrial Revolution. The exact date seems to move around based upon what area of history you are refering to.

From Wikipedia

Modern warfare is a complex affair, involving the widespread use of highly adavanced technology. As a term, it is normally taken as referring to conflicts involving one or more first world powers, within the modern electronic era. However, this is not to say that third world countries do not also engage in war, although they are more prone to the use of low-tech weaponry and guerilla tactics. This complex subject can be broken down and divided into a variety of categories and subcategories

and again from Wikipedia

Early modern warfare is associated with the start of the widespread use of gunpowder and the development of suitable weapons to use the explosive. It begins, in Europe and the Middle East, during the middle of the fifteenth century and lasts until the end of the eighteenth century.

The current understanding of early modern warfare comes from the works of Michael Roberts who argued that a military revolution occurred in the sixteenth century that forever changed warfare, and society in general. Since he wrote in the 1950s his narrative has been augmented and challenged by other scholars. When exactly the revolution occurred is debated, and whether it was revolution or a slow transformation is also discussed.

Alexander is my pet peeve, so... there goes. And seing he was bisexual and quite a party animal, he sure is more modern than some 19th and 20th and even 21st century stiffs, of the "morality uber alles" conglomerate

So do you pet Alexander a lot

Alexander does not fit into the defination of modern warfare - no matter how one attempts to state it.

[Rosacrux redux]

So do you pet Alexander a lot .

Alexander does not fit into the defination of modern warfare - no matter how one attempts to state it.

Yah, modern warfare maybe... but he was modern in his times, no?

[Redleg]

Hardly right. The modern aspects of the ACW was the industry and totality of eth war, and of course the development of the respective armies.
But in terms of combined arms I would say it wasn't so much the case.
Almost all battles were sluggingmatches between infantry, supported by artillery. That artillery was independant quite often, which was a good thing in the ACW as it could easier find a new spot to fire from.
The cavalry didn't have an integral infantry force with them for obvious reasons. The North did find a way around this by makign their cavalry more like infantry, but still they were not combined with infantry.

And far too often the caavlry had to deal with its objectives alone, and the infantry likewise. It is in fact the opposite of combined arms. It is devided arms.

I was joking did you not notice the

But I was also partly serious - The civil war in the United States is considered the first modern war by many historians. Several battle - were fought with all three branches being used together.

Take for instance the Battle of Gettysburg. From the Union standpoint alone. A cavarly screen stumbled onto a shoe gathering party. An essential part of modern movement to contacts is the unit as a screen in front to find and fix the enemy force.

Using Wikipedia as a source - because its convient

When Pettigrew's troops approached Gettysburg on June 30, they noticed Federal cavalry under Brig. Gen. John Buford west of town, and Pettigrew returned to Cashtown without engaging them. When Pettigrew told Hill and Henry Heth about what he had seen, neither general believed that there was a substantial Federal force in or near the town, suspecting that it had been only Pennsylvania militia. Despite General Lee's order to avoid a general engagement until his entire army was concentrated, Hill decided to mount a significant reconnaissance in force the following morning to determine the size and strength of the enemy force in his front. Around 5 a.m. on Wednesday, July 1, Heth's division advanced to Gettysburg.

Then here showing that part of the Battle of Gettysburg followed some of the doctrines of what is now considered combined arms warfare.

Around 1:00 p.m., 170 Confederate cannons began an artillery bombardment was probably the largest of the war. In order to save valuable ammunition for the infantry attack that they knew must follow, the Army of the Potomac's artillery at first did not return the enemy's fire. After waiting about 15 minutes, 80 or so Federal cannon added to the din. The Army of Northern Virginia was critically low on artillery ammunition, and the cannonade did not significantly affect the Union position. Around 3:00 p.m, the cannon fire subsided, and 12,500 Southern soldiers stepped from the ridgeline and advanced the three-quarters of a mile (1200 m) to Cemetery Ridge in what is known to history as "Pickett's Charge". Due to fierce flanking artillery fire from Union positions on Cemetery Hill and north of Little Round Top, and musket and canister fire from the II Corps as the Confederates approached, nearly one half of the attackers would not return to their own lines. Although the Federal line wavered and broke temporarily at a jog in a low stone fence called the "Angle", just north of a patch of vegetation called the Copse of Trees, reinforcements rushed into the breach and the Confederate attack was repulsed.

There were two significant cavalry engagements on July 3. Stuart was sent to guard the Confederate left flank and was to be prepared to exploit any success the infantry might achieve on Cemetery Hill by flanking the Federal right and hitting their trains and lines of communications. Three miles (5 km) east of Gettysburg, in what is now called "East Cavalry Field" (not shown on the accompanying map, but between the York and Hanover Roads), Stuart's forces collided with Federal cavalry: Brig. Gen. David McM. Gregg's division and George A. Custer's brigade. A lengthy mounted battle, including hand-to-hand sabre combat, ensued. Custer's charge, leading the 1st Michigan Cavalry, blunted the attack by Wade Hampton's brigade, blocking Stuart from achieving his objectives in the Federal rear. After Pickett's Charge, Meade ordered Brig. Gen. Judson Kilpatrick to launch a cavalry attack against the infantry positions of Longstreet's Corps southwest of Big Round Top. Brig. Gen. Elon J. Farnsworth protested against the futility of such a move, but obeyed orders; Farnsworth was killed in the attack and his brigade suffered significant losses.

Then there are the lesser know battles fought in the west - again from Wikipedia for convience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pea_Ridge

On the morning of 8 March Curtis massed his artillery near the Tavern and launched a counterattack in an attempt to recover his supply lines. Leading the attack was Curtis' second-in-command Franz Sigel. The massed artillery combined with cavalry and infantry attacks began to crumple the Confederate lines. By noon Van Dorn realized that he was low on ammunition and that his supply trains were miles away with no hope of arriving in time to resupply his men. Despite outnumbering his opponent, Van Dorn had no choice but to withdraw down the Huntsville Road.

There are other battles fought in the civil war that have all the aspects of modern combined arms warfare - just like there are also battles that were nothing but infantry slug fests like the ones in WW1.

The American Civil War is often considered the first modern war for many reasons - the primary being that the whole nation was involved in the war effort. But also because many of the fundmental tactics of combined arms warfare was also being experimented with and used.