Abstract
Traditional combined arms warfare is premised on the assumption that a symmetrical mix of different kinds of units and weapons offers an army the best prospect of achieving optimal results on the battlefield. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been accused by critics over the years of essentially abandoning the practice of traditional combined arms warfare before the 1973 Yom Kippur War in favor of a nontraditional (asymmetrical) variant that relied much too heavily on tanks and aircraft. While this criticism certainly has substantial merit, the IDF’s reverses in the early days of the war were not due solely to a lack of emphasis on traditional combined arms warfare, but rather also to a “perfect storm” of circumstances that obtained at the outset of hostilities. To its credit, the IDF learned rapidly from its prewar mistakes in force structure and war-fighting doctrine, reverting within days to a traditional approach to the practice of combined arms warfare, at least on the ground. Though not a battlefield panacea by any means, traditional combined arms warfare clearly contributed to the IDF’s eventual victory in the war.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of an earlier draft of this article for their encouraging words and insightful comments. The latter certainly helped to improve the quality of the final product. Responsibility for any remaining descriptive and/or analytical problems in the article, of course, rests entirely with the author.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
David Rodman
David Rodman is the author of three books about Israeli military and diplomatic history. His latest work is Sword and Shield of Zion: The Israel Air Force in the Arab–Israeli Conflict, 1948–2012. He has also published articles in such professional journals as Middle Eastern Studies, The Journal of Strategic Studies, Israel Affairs, MERIA Journal, Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, and Intelligence and National Security.