Research approaches to the study of combat formations: A personal note

106There is a basic assumption that the military is an institution notorious for being hierarchical, bureaucratic and replete with prescriptive procedures. In contrast to this often justified view of the military as in institution, military operations themselves are often perceived by those involved as fluid and even chaotic. A primary reason for this contradiction is the need for the adaptation of the military structure to operations in an environment characterized by great uncertainty (Soeters & van Fenema, 2010). Military missions by their nature are subject to the uncertainties of combat. As part of the process of operation, there is a high possibility for the amalgamation of units into combat formations. The reasons for this mode of action are often planned in advance according to doctrine, as in the case of a combined-arms brigade. But, in many cases, they result from emergencies and surprise or ad hoc practical necessities. A good example is the ad hoc linkup of ground and air components while coordinating the rescue of wounded soldiers (Ben-Shalom & Tsur, 2018). Another example is the formation of a new unit composed of the survivors of units that have suffered heavy losses (Rush, 1999). Under these conditions, the military is forced to combine various elements and work in a “mission formation type of action”. My contention is that mission formations are emblematic of such fluidity and that this aspect of the military institution requires an appropriate approach by behavioral scientists.