Different prerequisites for war exists and varies due to the terrain. Cities, mountains and covered terrain all creates their special conditions for the battle. The biggest difference in methods is found between the urban warfare and all the other ways of fighting in war. Combined arms constitutes the fundamentals of fighting a war, and organizing armed forces. But if the environment of the war is changing, the different prerequisites of combined arms need to change. The purpose of this study is to survey the distinguishing differences and prerequisites between the two kinds of environments, described in the invasion and fight in Rumaila oil field (2003) and Operation Phantom Fury (2004). By analyzing these cases, the purpose of this theory consuming case study is to explore and examine the use of combined arms in different environments during the Iraqi war in between 2003 and 2004. The analytical results reveal that the prerequisites before Operation Phantom Fury that made the operation successful was premonition to all the civilians in the city of Fallujah, the aggressive and massive use of indirect fire support, the reorganization of the divisions backbone, infantry, and finally the knowledge from earlier operations in Fallujah.

A trend in modern warfare is to conduct war both conventionally and unconventionally. This modern era sets high demands on conventional forces to face the contemporary threat. Most of the modern conventional forces conduct war through maneuver warfare and uses the practice of combined arms to organize and fight, but is the method of combined arms still a valid method? This study examines Robert Leonhard’s theory of combined arms in the Yom Kippur war 1973 and during the American Thunder Runs in Baghdad 2003. The research question that this study is trying to answer is how the combined arms theory can explain the tactical success in the two cases. Previous studies about the theory explains how it could be understood, not how it is used. The theory encompasses three principles which is applied to the two cases to allow a structured analysis. The results show that both the Israelis and the Americans use the combined arms theory to achieve tactical success. What the analysis also shows is that the theory is not the only element that achieved success, but also technical advantage, moral and experience made an impact on the outcome of the cases.

Sweden is a country that has identified the need to increase its military capabilities due to the ongoing decrease of stability in northern Europe. Russia is being more aggressive, and reports say that the latest military exercises in Russia has been focused on minimizing the time to mobilize large units. This development has led to a political will to expand the number of Swedish brigades that could be used to defend the country. Sweden has a long tradition of maneuver warfare. In the armed force´s handbooks and doctrines, you can find lots of evidence of an ambition to inflict damage on a potential enemy through the principle of combined arms. But are the Swedish armed forces organized in a proper way to do so?    The purpose of this essay is to investigate how the current organization could be complemented with a new type of infantry brigades. In doing so this essay is a comparative text analysis of doctrines and handbooks connected to two types of infantry battalions, one old organization from the cold war era and one modern. The results found in this is that the organizations are quite similar. Small differences lead to the conclusion that the modern style battalion organization is preferable, mainly to its organizational focus on delaying operations.

This thesis examines how the use of combined arms according to Robert Leonhards theory can explain the military success on the tactical level of war in two historical cases. Previous studies focus mainly on how combined arms shall be understood and how it shall be used and not how combined arms has contributed to military success. This thesis uses a theory testing case study to examine how combined arms contributed to the military success of the Israeli forces in the Yom Kippur-war and to that of American forces in  Operation Desert Storm.   The analysis is based on Robert Leonhards three principles of combined arms. The result of the analysis shows that both the Israeli forces and the American forces used the different principles of combined arms. The analysis also showed that the use of combined arms created military success at the tactical level of the different wars, but combined arms cannot by itself explain the military success as the technical advantages, moral and educational level also had a significant impact on the outcome.

Recent aggressions and geopolitical insecurities in the Baltic region have made it necessary for the Swedish armed forces to change their focus from an international defense policy to a territorial defense strategy. This change focuses mainly on strengthening the defensive capabilities of the Swedish armed Forces by reshaping the brigade structures with a focus on combined arms warfare in conjunction to maneuver warfare. Current doctrine and manuals show a lack in combined arms concerning its contribution to tactical success as well as its origin. As such a question whether tactical success can be explained with combined arms has been raised. This thesis aims to examine if Robert R Leonhard’s theory on combined arms can explain success at a tactical level during Operation Desert Storm and the Yom Kippur war and the analysis focuses on Robert Leonhards three principles of combined arms. The result of the study shows that the theory can partly explain success at a tactical level in both cases. But further studies must be conducted on the subject in order to increase the theories explanatory power.

On the 24 of February 2022 Russia launched an operation to seize control of Hostomel Airport, a few miles from Kyiv. Although Russia is the military superior state in the war with Ukraine, they failed to achieve the strategic purpose of the operation. The operation is an example of the classic, empirical puzzle of how relatively superior military actors can still lose armed conflictsagainst a weaker opponent. The aim of this study is to make a contribution to the research on asymmetric warfare, focusing on why a military stronger, state actor sometimes fails to achieve strategic victory in a conflict with another state actor. The more specific aim is to increase the understanding of why Russia, the military stronger state, did not achieve the strategic objective of the operation at Hostomel Airport in February 2022. The study was carried out as a single case study, using the method “structured, focused comparison”. Two theories were used to increase the understanding of the outcome, Warden´s theory of Air Superiority and Leonhard´s theory of Combined Arms. The results of the study shows that both Warden´s and Leonhard´s theories contributed to a more comprehensive understanding of the outcome of the operation. Russian forces lack of air superiority resulted in several consequences and frictions to the Russian assault. Russian forcescould not operate freely in the air and both the Ukrainian air defence and air force were able toaffect the Russian forces throughout the operation. One of the most important conclusions of the study was that the Russian forces lack of air superiority enabled the Ukrainian air force to bomb and destroy the runways, making them impossible to land heavy aircraft on. Russia did notimplement the principles of combined arms during most of the operation, and never at the critical moments. One consequence of this could be that the initial attack was prolonged, making it impossible for Russian reinforcements to land on the runways.

Thesis (doctoral)--ELTE Universität, Budapest, 2001.

Submitted by VALERIA OSTETE JANNIS LUCHETTA null (v_luchetta@uol.com.br) on 2017-12-18T19:08:57Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Tese-Valeria_Ostete_Jannis_Luchetta.pdf: 50620362 bytes, checksum: 83603c2cf7954c3e54c5b514f1349a73 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Adriana Aparecida Puerta null (dripuerta@rc.unesp.br) on 2017-12-19T16:13:23Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 luchetta_voj_dr_rcla.pdf: 50476781 bytes, checksum: b699e31dcd81595fcb782249edc5c527 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2017-12-19T16:13:23Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 luchetta_voj_dr_rcla.pdf: 50476781 bytes, checksum: b699e31dcd81595fcb782249edc5c527 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-11-24 / No presente trabalho apresentamos uma análise de alguns dos capítulos da obra Elements of Algebra (1840), de Leonhard Euler (1707 - 1783), que tratam de Séries infinitas. Nesta obra encontramos os métodos e os resultados mais importantes à respeito de álgebra alcançados por Euler até 1770. Nosso objetivo foi analisar e evidenciar os diferentes modos de produção de significados e conhecimentos para o objeto matemático séries infinitas na obra supra citada tomando como fundamentação teórica e metodológica o Modelo dos Campos Semânticos. Apresentamos a tradução dos capítulos selecionados, produzimos significados a eles utilizando nosso referencial teórico e os comparamos com a forma que produzimos significados e conhecimentos hoje utilizando a Teoria de Séries. / In this work we present an analysis of some of the chapters of Leonhard Euler’s (1707- 1783) Elements of Algebra (1840), which deal with Infinite Series. In his work we find the most important methods and results regarding algebra achieved by Euler until 1770. Our goal was to analyze and evidence the different modes of production of meanings and knowledge for the mathematical object infinite series in the work cited above taking as theoretical and methodological foundation the Model of Semantic Fields. We present the translation of the selected chapters, we produce meanings for them using our theoretical benchmark and compare them with the way we produce meanings and knowledge today using the Theory of Series.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T15:05:00Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 SaraMSL_DISSERT.pdf: 4622900 bytes, checksum: 9c1229ad25c3c58fdb8c23fa644070ee (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-01-22 / Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cient?fico e Tecnol?gico / Among the many methodological resources that the mathematics teacher can use in the classroom, we can cite the History of Mathematics which has contributed to the development of activities that promotes students curiosity about mathematics and its history. In this regard, the present dissertation aims to translate and analyze, mathematically and historically, the three works of Euler about amicable numbers that were writed during the Eighteenth century with the same title: De numeris amicabilibus. These works, despite being written in 1747 when Euler lived in Berlin, were published in different times and places. The first, published in 1747 in Nova Acta Eruditorum and which received the number E100 in the Enestr?m index, summarizes the historical context of amicable numbers, mentions the formula 2nxy & 2nz used by his precursors and presents a table containing thirty pairs of amicable numbers. The second work, E152, was published in 1750 in Opuscula varii argument. It is the result of a comprehensive review of Euler s research on amicable numbers which resulted in a catalog containing 61 pairs, a quantity which had never been achieved by any mathematician before Euler. Finally, the third work, E798, which was published in 1849 at the Opera postuma, was probably the first among the three works, to be written by Euler / Entre os diversos recursos metodol?gicos que podem ser trabalhados na sala de aula pelo professor de matem?tica, podemos citar a Hist?ria da Matem?tica que contribui para a elabora??o de atividades que promovam curiosidade hist?rica e matem?tica nos discentes. Assim, a presente disserta??o objetiva traduzir e analisar, matematicamente e historicamente, os tr?s trabalhos de Euler sobre os n?meros amig?veis que foram escritos durante o s?culo XVIII com o mesmo t?tulo: De numeris amicabilibus. Estes trabalhos, apesar de terem sido escritos em 1747 quando Euler vivia em Berlim, eles foram publicados em datas e lugares diferentes. O primeiro, publicado em 1747 na Nova Acta Eruditorum e que recebeu a numera??o E100 do ?ndex Enestr?m, apresenta resumidamente o contexto hist?rico dos n?meros amig?veis, menciona a f?rmula 2nxy & 2nz que foi usada por seus precursores e ainda apresenta uma tabela contendo como resultado trinta pares de n?meros amig?veis. Por sua vez, o segundo trabalho, E152, foi publicado em 1750 na Opuscula varii argumenti, ele ? o resultado de uma an?lise completa da pesquisa de Euler sobre os n?meros amig?veis que resultou em um cat?logo contendo 61 pares, quantidade n?o alcan?ada por nenhum matem?tico antes de Euler. Por fim, o terceiro trabalho, E798, que foi publicado em 1849 na Opera postuma, provavelmente tenha sido o primeiro, entre os tr?s trabalhos, a ser escrito por Euler

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.