The Swedish Air Force's security forces consist of small units specifically designed to counter security threats including sabotage, espionage, and criminal activity. In times of war, their primary duty is to defend vital air force operations and terrain. Their dimensioning opponent’s airborne forces are believed to have the capacity to airdrop battalions equipped with armored personnel carriers with automatic grenade launchers. As a result, it is likely that these smaller, company-sized units may encounter a more substantial and advanced force. In 2020, Peter Thunholm and Lars Henåker proposed a theory on land-based tactics called The Ideal Model. This theory consists of seven sequential steps aimed at causing organizational breakdown and ultimately improving the chances of winning a battle. The Ideal Model has been put to the test in 48 mechanized battles using the Swedish Defense University's battle simulator, and the results show that this theory has some explanatory value in mechanized warfare. This study aims to test Peter Thunholm's and Lars Henåker's theory on non-mechanized battles, specifically on defensive infantry battles, to determine if the Ideal Model is applicable to the Air Force's security forces' defensive tasks during wartime. By analyzing two cases, Goose Green 1982 and Zhawar 1986, this study shows that the Ideal Model has explanatory value on defensive land-based infantry battles at the tactical war level.

Denna undersökning har studerat ett lätt infanteriförbands användning av kombinerad bekämpning som metod för verkan under en amfibieoperation samt vilka aspekter som påverkade möjligheten till kombinerad bekämpning p.g.a. operationens amfibiska karaktär. Fallet har utgjorts av Parachute Regiments två bataljoner som under Falklandskriget utkämpade tre slag vid Darwin – Goose Green, Mount Longdon och Wireless Ridge. Som analysverktyg har använts Robert Leonhards teori om den kombinerade bekämpningens tre principer. Indikatorer på principerna har varit syften med verkan hämtade ur teorin om de grundläggande förmågorna. Två av slagen befanns endast delvis kännetecknas av Leonhards två första principer, principerna om kompletterande system och dilemman. Den tredje principen om fördelaktig terräng uppfylldes inte. Det tredje slaget regementet utkämpade kännetecknades helt igenom av Leonhards två första principer medan den tredje delvis beaktades. Undersökningen konstaterar att kombinerad bekämpning som metod för verkan kan utvecklas av ett lätt infanteriförband under en amfibieoperation. Dock ledde ofördelaktig disponering av förbandet i de aktuella fallen till att kombinerad bekämpning tidvis omöjliggjordes. Leonhards tredje princip tenderade att förringas. De specifikt amfibiska aspekterna avseende möjligheten till kombinerad bekämpning utgjordes främst av tillgången till fartygsartilleri, kraven på helikoptertransporterbart fältartilleri samt bristen på lätta trossfordon. / This dissertation has investigated how a light infantry force has used combined arms during an amphibious operation, specific factors related to the operations character affecting the possibility to develop combined arms have also been highlighted. The case chosen for the study was Parachute Regiments actions during the three battles of Darwin – Goose Green, Mount Longdon and Wireless Ridge during the Falklands War. As a analytical tool Robert Leonhard’s theory about the three principles of combined arms was used together with indicators borrowed from the theory about the warfighting functions purposes of fires. Two of the battles were found to be only partially characterized by Leonhard’s first two principles, complementary systems and dilemmas. The third principle about favorable terrain was neglected. The third battle was throughout characterized by the first two principles and to a larger extent than the former by the third principle. The dissertation concludes that light infantry can use combined arms during amphibious operations. The battles studied were, however, often characterized by unfavorable disposition of the force which affected the possibilities to use combined arms. Leonhard´s third principle was usually neglected. The most important amphibious aspects affecting the possibilities to combined arms were found to be naval gunfire support, light field artillery and the scarcity of light all-terrain vehicles.