Combat effectiveness
Combat effectiveness is an aspect of military effectiveness[2] and can be attributed to the strength of combat support including the quality and quantity of logistics, weapons and equipment as well as military tactics, the psychological states of soldiers, level of influence of leaders, skill and motivation that can arise from nationalism to survival are all capable of contributing to success on the battlefield.
[8] The number of enemy casualties is one of the main indicators of success in combat and was used by the United States army in the Vietnam and Korean wars.
[13] During wartime, resources and supplies including food, medical aid and technical equipment may be limited which can affect a military unit's resilience.
As well as access to a sufficient level of resources, the adequate fulfilment of social needs aids survival in periods of hardship.
Henderson states that soldiers turn to their peers for mental support in the absence of family or other influences from home and as the unit becomes more cohesive, its members devote greater effort into maintaining and improving their goals.
[14] Johan M.G van der Dennen says they are more readily able to endure combat through the camaraderie formed from the need for comfort from peers and understanding of their shared suffering.
[16] Soldiers who are unwilling to fight may face consequences of sanctions and in rare circumstances they are prosecuted for the refusal of deployment such as the case with British military members, Lance Corporal Glenton and Flight Lieutenant Kendall-Smith, who were charged and faced imprisonment for refusing to return to their deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
They place emphasis on strengthening the cohesion and spirit of their units through the oath a soldier takes at the beginning of their military service.
Oaths for some brigades are taken at historically significant locations such as the Western Wall in Jerusalem where the 1948 Arab–Israeli War occurred, to reinforce accomplishments of past comrades.
[21] The Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) in World War I comprised a mix of soldiers with different levels of training.
[23] Effective military tactics involve the consideration of different forms of terrain, enemy, surrounding dangers and the physical states of soldiers.
[26] The terrain of valleys allowed ambushing soldiers at great heights to roll enormous stones onto armies passing below.
[28] During World War I, British tactics consisted of concise objectives, large quantities of artillery and tools which involved the introduction of gas, trench mortars and wireless signals for communication.
[30] Stephen Biddle argues that states that master and use the "modern system" of force employment have greater battlefield performance.
[31] Biddle rejects that merely possessing superior military capabilities confers a battlefield advantage, arguing that combat effectiveness is in large part due to non-material variables, such as the tactics deployed.
[31] Effective leaders reinforce the chain of command and are required to possess the fast decision-making skills necessary especially in high pressure environments both on the battlefield and in training.
[21] Effective military leadership requires leaders to maintain considerations such as the material welfare of their troops[32] and they are expected to overcome obstacles and utilise their strengths.
[35] During the English Civil War in 1642, military leaders such as Cromwell, Fairfax and Lambert held moral authority over their troops who had confidence in their leadership and were highly motivated and prepared for battle.
[36] In ancient times, adequate supplies of consumables including food and water for both men and animals was considered a basic aspect of military success, strategically and tactically.
[38] Additionally, food needed to be transported for both men and animals and if they were not sufficiently fed, they would struggle to perform tasks effectively and efficiently.
[40] In the early 19th century, weapons in general use included large-calibre ordnance, breech-loading artillery, muskets and armoured warships that were powered by steam.
Western countries such as the United States and France could produce transport, ammunition, food supplies and other resources with more ease than the period before the Industrial Revolution.
In the 19th and the 20th centuries, improved means of communication were introduced in the forms of radio, television, high-performance computer systems and telephones.
It became a factor for the Allied victory in the First World War when codebreakers were able to decode the radio communications of German, Japanese and Italian forces.
[44] Armoured uniforms have been developed to protect soldiers from incoming bullets and damage from explosions as well as military robots to aid in reconnaissance and bomb disposal.
[45] A number of scholars have posited that domestic political factors strongly affect the skills, cohesion, will, and organizational structures of military organizations, with implications for their combat effectiveness.
In a 2010 study, Michael Beckley pushed on this scholarship, finding that economic development (an indicator) of power was a strong predictor of victory in war, and that factors such as "democracy, Western culture, high levels of human capital, and amicable civil-military relations" were not consequential.
In societies where ethnic groups are marginalized or repressed, militaries struggle to simultaneously obtain cohesion and combat power, as the soldiers will lack belief in a shared common purpose, as well as lower trust.
[54] However, critics argue that democracy itself makes little difference in war and that some other factors, such as overall power, determine whether a country would achieve victory or face defeat.
[55][56][57][58] Jasen Castillo argues that autocratic states may in certain circumstances have an advantage over democracies; for example, authoritarian regimes may have ideologies that require unconditional loyalty, which may contribute to military cohesion.
