Ground Combat: Puncturing the Myths of Modern War by Ben Connable. Georgetown University Press, 2025, 352 pp.
Ben Connable, PhD, is a retired Major in the United States Marine Corps. He served as an intelligence officer and Middle East foreign area officer with extensive experience in Iraq. He received his PhD in war studies from King’s College London and is an adjunct professor at Georgetown. As a senior political scientist for the RAND Corporation, he led numerous research projects for the United States and allied government sponsors. Connable’s analytical monograph, Ground Combat: Puncturing the Myths of Modern War, examines the relevance and importance of ground-based warfare in the face of technological advancements. His work challenges the notion that technology has considerably transformed the nature of ground-based combat. Instead, he argues that specific combat strategies, such as trend forecasting, multidisciplinary analysis, and informed judgment, have a larger impact on determining the battlespace.
Connable asserts that despite technological advancements and their emergence on the battlefield, the fundamentals of ground combat have remained essentially unchanged over time. He also states that there is no concrete evidence confirming that the employment of combat technology has revolutionized ground operations. The strength of Connable’s argument originates from an extensive dataset of over 400 historical battles and skirmishes that occurred worldwide between 2003 and 2022, along with an additional twenty ground-based use cases from World War II. This practical analysis of ground warfare spanning multiple decades lends validity to Connable’s argument. Specific battles are analyzed and described in greater detail throughout the text, adding further weight to the argument. Additionally, the inclusion of supporting graphics throughout the work adds depth to the analysis.
In addition to examinations of specific battles, Connable provides an analysis of notable technological innovations employed on the battlefield within each decade. This ability to contextualize the findings and connect them to the broader scope is another strength of the reading. For instance, in the section discussing the application of GPS, thermal imagers, and satellites, Connable argues that despite their implementation, there was no profound gain from using these devices; they all were still susceptible to spoofing and jamming. He adds that factors such as terrain, physical distance, and military forecasting had a profound impact on the tides of battle, surpassing the influence of any employed technologies.
Connable’s thesis is heavily supported by his empirically derived evidence. His comparative studies across military eras support his conclusions about the merits of human and terrain-based factors. His thesis is further substantiated by highlighting connections on the negligible effects of technology in the battlespace. Throughout the reading, Connable implies that war is constantly changing; allied forces must adapt to their respective era and circumstances. Additionally, he recognized that despite considerable innovation, there has been no significant change in ground combat tactics since World War II. He urges that strategic planners should be cautious not to place too much emphasis on technology but rather focus more on the key factors previously mentioned.
This reading is a transformative study that reframes the perception of technology-based combat techniques. It stands out as a unique piece that provides an unconventional approach to warfare and encourages readers to reconsider previous notions. The work bridges interdisciplinary analysis of historical data with thought-provoking discussion. Readers are challenged on the belief that technological superiority equates to victory.
The study’s limitations primarily stem from data accuracy. Wartime assessments obtained from military leaders typically lack a consistent or established method for data aggregation. As a result, the collector’s combat experiences can influence the data sets through subconscious bias, which skews the data. This bias slightly mirrors the author’s, whose service as a foreign area and intelligence officer may have influenced his perspective on ground warfare. He acknowledged this bias, however, noting that his work contained unavoidable subjectivity. Despite this pitfall, Connable’s ability to identify data gaps within his own work further reinforces the depth of his expertise and research methodology.
Although Ground Combat comprises an extensive number of combat cases that have direct relevance to the central thesis, the work could have benefited from a more in-depth discussion on technological advancements in ground warfare. Connable acknowledges that the source data used to analyze technology utilization for some systems lacked the same level of substantiation as the information in his other data sources. He also identified a lack of detailed reports on drone employment within the battlespace, but concluded that it was unlikely that any intelligence agency possessed accurate and representative drone operation data.
This publication seamlessly integrates qualitative and historical data into an insightful narrative, resulting in an engaging and valuable read. The use cases in Connable’s writing involve combat engagements with 25–40 combatants per side. Thus, teams that primarily rely on small-unit precision strike tactics may not find the information in the reading particularly applicable unless they are embedded with larger units. Commanding officers who direct and lead ground operations, especially those involved in strategic planning and oversight, are most likely to derive substantial value from this work. More specifically, Expeditionary Defense Force Commanders may find value in the reading, as they are occasionally tasked with forward-deploying teams into contested locations. Many combat-related specialty codes serving under the Air Force Special Operations Command may also find the information in this reading relevant, depending on their defined mission set. Through its use cases and data sets, Ground Combat provides leaders with a more holistic view of ground operations.
SSgt Anthonyo J. Kinch-Rice, USAF