Copyright Notice: This AI-generated research prompt is an original compilation and structured work produced as part of the JB-GPT PROMPTS project. While individual prompts may not qualify for copyright protection under standard AI-generated content rules, the format, structure, curation, and selection of material are protected as a creative compilation. This work may only be used, cited, or reproduced with proper attribution to the JB-GPT PROMPTS project and the source page (www.jb-gpt-prompts.com/air-power). Unauthorized use without acknowledgment is not permitted. 

OVERVIEW

This page provides a structured prompt and reference system to guide AI-generated answers on military topics, especially Combined Arms Manoeuvre (CAM). It ensures all responses are grounded in an approved bibliography and follow strict academic formatting, making it a reliable tool for professional military education, research, and strategic analysis. 

INSTRUCTIONS INCLUDED WITH EACH PROMPT ARE AS FOLLOWS:

***************************************************

SELECT ALL AND COPY EVERYTHING ON THIS PAGE. PASTE IT INTO THE INPUT BOX OF THE AI OF YOUR CHOICE.

After pasting, you may use the example questions below or delete them and replace them with your own questions.

Example Questions:
Q1: Please provide some examples of follow-up questions that I can ask this AI.
Q2: Please provide a more detailed explanation of key point number ____.

Feel free to disagree with the AI’s answer. Challenge it. An AI's response should be considered one stage in the learning process—not the final word.

Note: You may, if you wish, remove the restriction that requires the AI to limit itself to the approved bibliography.

—————————————————

INSTRUCTIONS TO AI:

LEAVE IN OR DELETE THE FOLLOWING—YOUR CHOICE:
FOR THIS QUESTION, THE AI CAN USE ANY RESOURCES TO WHICH IT HAS ACCESS. IT IS NOT RESTRICTED TO THE APPROVED BIBLIOGRAPHY.
01. Use this AI prompt to answer the above question(s).
02. Everything must be supported by references sourced either from the prompt or from the following:
https://www.jb-gpt-prompts.com/jb-gpts-military-references
03. You are to use the extensive approved references when answering questions.
04. Your output must include:

• Five to ten key numbered points, each in its own paragraph.

• Each key point must be supported by a specific reference, including book title and chapter number.

• Include a full, separate Harvard-style bibliography at the end of your response.

• Each bibliography entry must appear in a separate paragraph and follow consistent formatting.

• Provide a minimum of five references drawn from the prompt or from the approved reference list:
  https://www.jb-gpt-prompts.com/jb-gpts-military-references

5. Do not include summaries, definitions, or commentary.

***************************************************

Understanding Combined Arms Manoeuvre (CAM)

This page provides a structured collection of research-driven prompts designed to deepen understanding of Combined Arms Manoeuvre (CAM)—its historical development, modern application, and strategic significance across all domains of warfare. Each prompt invites focused exploration of key concepts, campaigns, capabilities, and command challenges that define CAM as a dynamic, multi-domain operational framework. Whether you're a military professional, researcher, educator, or student of strategy, these prompts will guide your engagement with CAM not just as a theory, but as a living, evolving method of warfare. By examining CAM from antiquity to contemporary conflicts, including coalition warfare and emerging technologies, this resource helps clarify how integrated operations achieve decisive effects in complex environments. 

While Combined Arms Manoeuvre (CAM) is historically associated with land warfare—particularly within the Prussian and European military traditions—its principles are not confined to ground operations. Analyses drawn from foundational military literature demonstrate that CAM, at its core, is about integrating diverse military capabilities to produce synergistic, operationally coherent effects. As such, the concept applies across all warfighting domains.

Definition:
Combined Arms Manoeuvre is the deliberate integration of multi-domain capabilities—land, sea, air, space, cyber, intelligence, and logistics—designed to create synchronised, mobile, and sustained combat effects across strategic, operational, and tactical levels.

Supporting References:

• Leonhard, R.R. (1994). The Art of Maneuver: Maneuver Warfare Theory and AirLand Battle. Presidio Press.

  • Ch. 6: “Operational Reach and Campaign Design” – Emphasises integration of logistics, intelligence, and cross-domain mobility.

• Olsen, J.A. & van Creveld, M. (Eds.) (2010). The Evolution of Operational Art: From Napoleon to the Present. Oxford University Press.

  • Ch. 12: “The Transformation of Operational Warfare” – Explores the expansion of CAM beyond land-centric doctrine to air, naval, and cyber domains.

This project uses the Australian English spelling “manoeuvre.” The American spelling is “maneuver.” Both terms refer to the same military concept and are used interchangeably in professional literature.

1. Definition and Evolution of Combined Arms Manoeuvre: From Cannae to Contemporary Doctrine

2. 338 BCE — Philip II of Macedon: Tactical CAM via cavalry–phalanx synchronisation at Chaeronea.

3. 331 BCE — Gaugamela: Alexander’s echeloned cavalry, light infantry, and engineers in integrated battlefield manoeuvre.

4. 216 BCE — Cannae: Hannibal’s encirclement using cavalry feint, infantry draw, and reserves.

5. 202–146 BCE — Punic Wars: Roman CAM evolution blending legions, cavalry, and naval enablers.

6. 53 BCE — Carrhae: Parthian horse archer–cataphract–logistics CAM against Roman heavy infantry.

7. 52 BCE — Alesia: Roman siege lines, infantry containment, and cavalry manoeuvre integration.

8. 612 CE — Nineveh: Sassanian heavy cavalry and archery CAM against Byzantine infantry formations.

9. 636 CE — Yarmouk: Arab light cavalry, archers, and infantry in multi-axis envelopment.

10. 732 CE — Tours: Frankish infantry and cavalry cohesion defeats Umayyad mobile assault.

11. 773–774 CE — Charlemagne’s Lombard Campaign: Alpine logistics, siege, cavalry, and infantry CAM.

12. 1071 CE — Manzikert: Seljuk horse archer deception, infantry reserve timing, and terrain exploitation.

13. 1119 CE — Ager Sanguinis: Seljuk ambush CAM integrating cavalry, archers, and local terrain.

14. 1214 CE — Bouvines: Philip II’s knight–militia–crossbow force as a structured medieval CAM.

15. 1291 CE — Fall of Acre: Mamluk siege artillery and infantry in naval-supported coastal CAM.

16. 1302 CE — Courtrai: Flemish infantry, terrain, and anti-cavalry defences in defensive CAM.

17. 1346 CE — Crécy: Longbow–infantry–primitive cannon in fixed-field integrated English CAM.

18. 1415 CE — Agincourt: Terrain-focused, dismounted English archery–infantry CAM.

19. 1485 CE — Bosworth: Firearms–cavalry–political manoeuvre CAM via Stanley defection.

20. 1526 CE — Mohács: Ottoman firepower–Janissary–cavalry flank CAM.

21. 1645 CE — Naseby: New Model Army CAM with trained coordination of fire, foot, and horse.

22. 1704 CE — Blenheim: Allied infantry–artillery–cavalry CAM across operational frontage.

23. 1800 CE — Marengo: Napoleon’s late-stage CAM reinforcing through real-time operational movement.

24. 1805 CE — Austerlitz: Corps-level deception and deep echelon CAM with interior lines.

25. 1806–1815 CE — German Movement Warfare: Auftragstaktik and Kesselschlacht within Bewegungskrieg CAM system.

26. 1809 CE — Wagram: French massed artillery–infantry assault with reserve cavalry synchronisation.

27. 1815 CE — Waterloo: Wellington’s Peninsular CAM legacy: terrain, infantry line, and allied integration.

28. 1800–1815 CE — Napoleonic Division CAM: Division as autonomous modular unit, marching to the sound of the guns.

29. 1863 CE — Gettysburg: Union artillery–infantry CAM on elevated terrain vs overextended Confederates.

30. 1870 CE — Sedan: German artillery–infantry CAM enabled by rail mobility and operational envelopment.

31. 1917 CE — Cambrai: Tank–infantry–artillery–air coordination: first modern CAM application.

32. 1918 CE — Amiens: Allied integrated assault: tanks, infantry, deception, air, and artillery.

33. 1939 CE — Poland: Blitzkrieg debut: armour–infantry–Luftwaffe–engineers in tactical synergy.

34. 1940 CE — France: Kesselschlacht and rapid mechanised CAM destroy Allied cohesion.

35. 1941 CE — Barbarossa: CAM initiation fails at scale due to logistic overstretch.

36. 1943 CE — Kursk: Soviet defensive CAM in depth against German offensive CAM.

37. 1944 CE — Normandy D-Day: Full-spectrum CAM: deception, naval fire, airborne drop, logistics, infantry.

38. 1943–1945 CE — Soviet Deep Battle: Layered artillery–tank–infantry–engineer CAM theory realised.

39. 1940–1944 CE — Battle of Britain: Radar–fighter control–AAA and deception as air CAM.

40. 1944 CE — Market Garden vs Normandy: Airborne CAM overreach vs integrated amphibious CAM.

41. 1945 CE — Okinawa: Navy–air–infantry–engineering synchronised attritional CAM.

42. 1950 CE — Inchon: Amphibious–air–infantry surprise CAM operation turning Korean War.

43. 1950–1951 CE — Korea: UN command disunity versus Chinese infantry–terrain–night CAM.

44. 1967 & 1973 CE — Arab–Israeli Wars: Israeli flexible air–armour–infantry CAM versus Arab rigidity.

45. 1982 CE — Falklands: Royal Navy–air–commando CAM projected at strategic range.

46. 1991 CE — Desert Storm: Coalition logistics–air–ground–deception CAM success.

47. 2003 CE — Iraqi Freedom: Rapid CAM success with post-conflict collapse of integration.

48. 2004 CE — Fallujah: Urban ISR–snipers–UAV–infantry–engineer CAM in block-by-block combat.

49. 2016–2017 CE — Mosul: Multi-force urban CAM integrating air, artillery, special forces.

50. 2022–2024 CE — Ukraine Defence: CAM innovation under fire: drones–artillery–infantry–deception.

51. 2022–2024 CE — Russia in Ukraine: Tactical-level CAM with strategic incoherence and alliance failure.