Their front armour is thickest at the front - Matsimus 2017
@Freyfrank
5 жыл бұрын
Matsimus is right about that, but the backside of the frontal armour is very thick too. You can tell indirectly by the fact that fire from the fighting compartment has not caused any known tank casualties yet.
@loserface3962
5 жыл бұрын
Lol
@heyhoe168
5 жыл бұрын
@@Freyfrank back and side armours are thickest at the front too. :D
@randomlyentertaining8287
5 жыл бұрын
Why is your comment not the most liked? XD
@ethanviolet1
5 жыл бұрын
Front to op pls nerf
@MotokoTai
7 жыл бұрын
In an urban enviroment , infanrty first in my opinon
@miguellopes2452
5 жыл бұрын
Yeah same let the tanks be the support in that case in open terrain tanks first and infantry on the support
@MrFrenkyCRO
5 жыл бұрын
Good example is Croatian war. Serb made mistakes in Vukovar city. They were sending tanks first. Croat soldiers were letting them deep in street and then hit tanks. You can search on yt Vukovar battle, Trpinjska cesta
@ahviper5871
5 жыл бұрын
tanks always behind,becuase now you hv weapons range from 200 meter to 5500 meter can get tanks blown to pieces
@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723
5 жыл бұрын
Scout Snipers well placed can call in a bombardment from the tanks as improvised mortars and or artillery crews if it is need be, while the rest of them push on,
@davidmeehan4486
5 жыл бұрын
In the city, infantry can move through buildings while tanks move through streets. They can move together.
@Capitanvolume
5 жыл бұрын
An officer with a whistle and sword should obviously lead.
@brianmead7556
5 жыл бұрын
Mounted on his horse with his very finest cap, cash, and epaulettes.
@ArsenicApplejuice
7 жыл бұрын
I suppose doctrinally the infantry lead an assault. Battles are rarely purely "counter-force". Battles are fought for something: key terrain, infrastructure, resources, hvts (people). Armor can't seize and clear these things. That being said mutually supporting armor and infantry make each of these tasks much easier.
@ArsenicApplejuice
7 жыл бұрын
*seize, clear and hold
@chiiesa
2 жыл бұрын
The point of a tank is literally to attack heavily fortified positions (these key objectives will be fortified)
@russellworden5324
7 жыл бұрын
This is going to be a long one. First those Bradly commander's need to learn what name tape defilade is and use their CIV's. As to the tank vs infantry question it depends on METT-C. If the terrain is closed the the infantry will decimate tanks, however as the terrain opens up the power swings back to tanks as the infantry loose cover and concealment. Prior to 9/11 at ft Stewart when we conducted force on force training we infantry ruled the tanks. The terrain there is mostly wooded with large open areas (dz's). As long as we didn't get decisively engaged we wouldn't fight in the open. If the tanks were pushing on us we would leave dismounts in patches of cover and pull back to the treeline baiting them in. As they pushed the dismounts would kill them from the flanks and rear. If they were dug in we would flank with dismounts and flush them out into an EA and kill them with TOW. Hunter killer teams. Same would go for urban terrain. The game changes when you move to open desert where our ability to stay hidden diminished. At ntc the opfor use the ridges and rocky terrain to hide similar to how we used the treeline. It also depends on who is defending and who is attacking. All this being said the skill and proficiency of the troops and how well they fight as a team mean more in my opinion. Currently 18 years as us army Infantryman.
@Limescale12
7 жыл бұрын
russell worden METT-TC is the answer for EVERY question! 👍😀 (my edit: I left out an essential T)
@russellworden5324
7 жыл бұрын
limescale onetwo Roger, have had that answer given plenty of times. was easier and left response shorter than to go into more detail.
@Rasgonras
7 жыл бұрын
What is METT-C? not all of us have been in any kind of army.
@Limescale12
7 жыл бұрын
Rasgonras I'll take this one: METT-TC is an acronym for Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops available, Time and Civilians. These factors are applied during the planning phase and the duration of every mission. Foreseen and unforseen decision making depends on them for every level of command. Another, simpler way of putting it is "it depends". But we in the military like our verbose acronyms so we say METT-TC. [met tee see] Hope that helps.
@Rasgonras
7 жыл бұрын
+limescale onetwo Thank you very much, that was very helpful.
@ciprianganea759
5 жыл бұрын
The tank was destined to break the front line, the infantry's role to conquer. So the fortified lines (as well as the lines of armored vehicles) are attacked and incapacitated by tanks followed by infantry, while in urban areas or areas prone to ambush, we are discussing about occupation / conquest, so the infantry is in front while the tanks provide artillery support; as a general rule like that have to be but not mandatory.
@shaheerhayatt3495
6 жыл бұрын
In short both tanks and Infantry compliment each other.
@madlyawww
6 жыл бұрын
At 8:40 there is a bottle in the smoke launcher.
@leohard1814
7 жыл бұрын
I think tanks are the literal modern Calvary from the middle ages. In those days Calvary created break throughs and routed the enemy then the infantry moved in to win the day. Calvary (Shock Calvary or Hussars) would disorganize lines of men so that the other side could charge in and cause mass casualties (see Seige of Vienna in 1689). Tanks in my mind should be shock Calvary I.e able to kill tanks but not specically intended to do so but have other units designed to do so (much like British in WW2)
@ghostttriddder
7 жыл бұрын
Laggin Dragon Games Correction sir, it was on 1689
@leohard1814
7 жыл бұрын
corrected
@Riceball01
7 жыл бұрын
Minor nitpick, horse borne forces are called cavalry, Calvary is a mountain and has a religious context.
@leohard1814
7 жыл бұрын
Riceball01 It was my phone auto correct, I just didn't feel like fixing it lol
@mateusz73
7 жыл бұрын
idk what you originally put but the Siege of Vienna was 1683 not 89
@colinskelding8959
2 жыл бұрын
The speed situation is solved by the use of Strykers. Strykers 2-2CAV have both tank destroying fire power as well as infantry assault capabilities. They hold up to 9 infantry within and maneuverability as well as quick dismount abilities.
@1985rbaek
7 жыл бұрын
Well there are a few things to consider: In most battlegroups you would have both a vanguard and a reconnaissance unit. In an open battlefield scenario the Recce unit will be a lightly armored unit with engineer support to spot out places of crossing i.e. rivers, finding bridges and stuff like that. Most tanks are effective at distances from 2500-5000m, where they can shoot and infantry will have a hard time responding. Vanguards are usually a heavy armored unit whose job it is to engage and pin the enemy, and the main force will then maneuver through. Tanks will still be your main battle weapon delivering fire power where needed, but they will have to have help from infantry and specialized units as Engineer recon and special forces to find their most efficient targets. Drones and stuff like that, if broadly applied in a modern conventional war scenario, will help with fulfilling the role of the Recce infantry, but you will still have to the need of front line engineers and infantry support. I think tanks will be more widely used in scenarios, where you found the enemies positions and pound them with artillery support and shape a corridor for infantry to clean out the positions. In most of the new conflicts we have with an ill-defined front line tanks may not be as cost-effective as infantry and IFVs, simply because the battle distance is shorter and you are mostly being ambushed on patrol by partisan and guerrilla forces that will try to withdraw quickly. In conventional war they are great, but have a hard time in type 2 war scenarios. Here they are mostly but on high ground where their superior optics and superior range is used as a counter ambush weapon if infantry is ambushed moving i.e. through a valley.
@RobotPanda15
5 жыл бұрын
A very important point about infantry is that the only way you can for sure get rid of them is with infantry. Bomb them, use artillery, whatever you do, you will never know for certain if you have killed off that infantry unless you send your own infantry out to make sure they're dead.
@nemesis76pain11
6 жыл бұрын
You have to remember that a tank gunner can see over 2miles out of his sights along with heat signatures. Can engage long before.
@gaylalutz9824
5 жыл бұрын
Speaking as a 19 kilo wife. They work together. Most Calvary units now have their own infantry group that train with them. So that we can be lethal at all fronts and now have better equipment then the ones in the video. And the ones you see people sitting in with the door on ground are Bradley’s. Not tanks. Those are basically infantry rides. But work like tanks in some aspects.
@TJkiwiOWEG
7 жыл бұрын
your thumbnail is a picture of my unit (2/23 usmcr) we did infantry and tank interoperability training in camp pendleton a few years ago.
@Gatekeeper0880
7 жыл бұрын
Infantry, transports with armament (HMMWV, etc.) and IFV's (LAV-25, BTR-90, etc.) would clear out AT teams in the area, clearing a path for a tank to then be able to assist in combat. Or the tank could sit at a distance and fire if within range of the target. They could also work side by side, such as 4 5 man squads, 2 tanks, and just repeat. Or tanks could follow infantry in to the combat zone. Either way, they both are crucial assets to one another.
@ab5olut3zero95
5 жыл бұрын
It’s completely situationally dependent, but in general it’s best IMO as a Co.Tm. CDR to use BOTH. Infantry clears what tanks can’t, tanks crush and destroy what’s too big for the Infantry.
@nyareyes8618
Жыл бұрын
media embeds, B-52s w/JDAMs, conventional cruise missiles, fast movers with SDBs, rotary with guided ordnance, cannon and rocket fires, combat engineers w/scouts/recce, logistics tail, tanks, mounted infantry, manuever reserve
@jameslee8573
4 жыл бұрын
It does heavily depend on the situation. Generally I think that when assulting a city (urban enviroments) I think tanks should lead the way due to the numerous ways enemy infantry can engage friendly infantry (such as windows, alley ways, abondoned vehichles, etc). Once you are able to get a foot hold the infantry should dismount and take the lead since tanks are very vulnerable to anti tank weapond in urban enviroments. As for more rural areas (especially flat plains or desserts) I believe tanks should lead the way most of the time since infantry will have little to no cover in open ground. Similar to what I said about urban enviroments I think the roles between armor and infantry should switch when entering a forest/jungle enviroment. When assulting tanks should lead, after establishing a foothold inf should lead and guide the tanks through. Those are just my 2 cents though....
@mrx2062
Жыл бұрын
Depends on the terrain. In open country tanks, in difficult terrain where combat distances are short, like more urban terrain, infantry,
@nickmiller21
3 жыл бұрын
Interesting this, as Michael Witmann's famous success would never happened at Villiers Bocage if the British commander had sent his infantry to clear the area where the Tigers were as was standard practice.
@dancingpotplant
5 жыл бұрын
Without knowing much about warfare post WW2 I found this an interesting video and definitely things to think about. I also enjoy miniature war gaming so it also makes me think how such things could be used for us armchair generals. +1 subscriber for you 👍😄
@deathfromabove2250
7 жыл бұрын
Very simple answer for you METT-TC Mission, Enemy, Terrain & Weather, Troops, Time available, Civilian considerations. All military operations are based on this model.
@2ndkombat
7 жыл бұрын
Depends on the type of terrain. One does not simply send tanks division to the Alps or the Himalayas.
@Lobos222
7 жыл бұрын
18:39 Do you hollies see allot of Norwegians pushing down trees like that during Cold Response? No, well guess why. Its not allowed!
@fulcrum2951
6 жыл бұрын
Depends tbh, but as always, infantry must and its a must accompany armored vehicles
@Mr12ob
4 жыл бұрын
Also take a look at The Battle of Debecka Pass. Green Berets with Javelins took out tanks in a desert environment.
@daveslow84
5 жыл бұрын
I think it's pretty clear.. we need to advance to the battle mech stage in the evolution of war!
@markjmaxwell9819
5 жыл бұрын
As was proven in IRAQ Sometimes when massive IED are involed the troops can see what the vehicle cannot. So a small recon force in front is nearly always desirable.
@dimbulb5441
5 жыл бұрын
Now that question is the million dollar question.
@rashequddinahmed9511
Жыл бұрын
In my opinion, it will vary from situation to situation on which to lead, infantry or tanks, depending on the circumstances. Commanders need to have the training and flexibility to decide as per the situational requirements.
@Elena-bk4fs
5 жыл бұрын
that tank at the end was so mad at that tree 🌲he jus ran right over it
@2ndkombat
6 жыл бұрын
As a part of Recce, we usually equipped with ATGMs & AT weapons. We also provide coordinates for artillery & airstrikes. Plus my country is not a tank country bcause of thick tropical rainforest. Much of the roles are still given to the infantry.
@harrypoosie3035
6 жыл бұрын
Gonna sound a little bit crazy here, oh well. If an army can find a way to mobilize its troops more effectively ie: a “jet pack” or light weight flying suit can all in all outdate the needs for mines, or maybe even armored vehicles. If someone can fly around at a few hundred miles an hour they are a small target, and harder to strike. Also, if my enemy were flying around whilst shooting at me and I can’t get a shot, I’d be extremely demoralized.
@logpost2950
Жыл бұрын
If infantry is armoured then it can adjust in armoured operations. Foot infantry is in follow up but still offensive to capture and then defensive in its role.
@gullintanni
5 жыл бұрын
Send in scouts/special forces and sniper teams first to tag enemy strongpoints. Use said info to deploy mechanised infantry supported by AFV's, tanks, artillery and the airforce. That is of course an ideal situation though. It all depends on available troop types.
@mauricej4781
3 жыл бұрын
Commanders must implement the METT-TC process ie: Mission Enemy Terrain and Weather Troops and Support available Time Available Civil Considerations
@willardlong2899
6 жыл бұрын
I was a combat engineer, so armored warfare is not my greatest strength. That being said, I have always had a great interest in this subject and have studied it a lot. In my opinion, the major deciding factors in who leads are terrain, the type of movement i.e., movement to contact, hasty assault, deliberate or planned assault, etc. and expected threats. Let us take for example, a tank batt. with an attached company of mech or armored infantry. First; movement to contact in open terrain with the primary expected threat to be long range anti-armor ambush. In this scenario, one would expect movement in open array, one mech platoon in the lead with the tank batt. following at a medium distance and the other two mech platoons on either flank to provide security, and perhaps one tank company held back for overwatch. In close terrain the infantry would almost always lead and flank. For a deliberate assault in the same terrain, one would expect the tanks to lead with a fast follow up by the mounted infantry. The armor would attack through the objective, and the infantry would dismount on the objective to mop up any bypassed survivors. I think I will leave it there for now. I may add to this post at a later time as thoughts come to me.
@zergos921221
6 жыл бұрын
As many of the people below have stated it depends on the situation. But what they haven't stated is that it also depends on the nation you are engaged with. For example China would probably in my opinion predominantly use infantry, since that is what they have in huge supply. Other countries might be hard pressed to use less infantry. I think that is a factor that should also be considered. Great video. Subbed
@F-14DSuperTomcat
6 жыл бұрын
I think Blitzkreig-style attacks are effective. First you would send in aircraft/bombers to bomb enemy defenses(anti-air,anti-tank,anti-infantry),then bombard them with long range artillery,then send in your tanks and infantry to seal the deal.
@colinskelding8959
2 жыл бұрын
Personally I feel infantry and armored should operate side by side unless battlefield operations show differently. Battlefields are very fluid and situations within the same battle may necessitate one being ahead of the other. Watch the videos on 73 Easting. There were no boots on the ground during that battle, while most city, town, village fighting later on was no tanks but rather infantry and Stryker units involved. Desert vs river lands vs forests vs mountains all call for different setups and mobility. In the end it boils down to troops fighting and dying and the side with lesser causlties tends to win the battle.
@Lobos222
7 жыл бұрын
Who is first becomes rather semantical in context of facing an equal enemy because you would want overwhelming force in an attack anyway and therefor also attack with everything at the same time if possible. Secondary modifiers like terrain should be natural. You wouldnt necessarily instantly dismount IFV infantry if the contact range was 3+ km in open desert or steps like terrain.
@amithrodrigo87
5 жыл бұрын
One of my friends traveled to Jaffna visiting a Tamil Friend. While there he had seen a strange metal box locals use as a bunk and asked his friend what it was and how it ended up there smack bang middle of his lawn. It was a metal cover part from an Indian army tank(They got to know fro the Army that it was a T63 much later). When the Indian army came in to attack a local LTTE base ...having no real clue about the LTTEs battle experience and tactics the large indian force was spearheaded by a T62 tank. Initially they thought they were kicking LTTE ass but LTTE guerrillas figured out how to deal with the more conventional indian army...Set up a huge land mine (near that Tamil friend's house) , kept a RPG crew in hiding close by and then used small arms fire to funnel the tank in to the narrow road where the mine was set. As soon as the tank ran over the AT mine, the resulting explosion tilted the tank to one side(almost turning it upside down) ...as soon as the tank was halted the RPG team finished the job by several well aimed shots to the under side of the T62. The troops nearby panicked after seeing this and tried to escape and was cut down by small arms fire. Much later the are was eventually lebarated from LTTE and the ramains of the tank was pulled away leaving brokedn off parts where they fell. Based on my experiance closely following the Ela ware here which lasted 30years.. Id say the best way to spear head the modern battle space is to use LRRP units followed by conventional special forces with AT capability, then Mec Infentry and then the Tanks.. LRRP small teams will survey the battle field in hiding and identify threats....Special Forces teams will then set up strike points or even take out fixed positions if necessary thinning the enemy's counter attack capability and mark the harder targets for the advancing Infantrymen and Tanks. What do you think ?
@gardehusar24
7 жыл бұрын
Know it's not really what you speak of here. But in Afghanistan we used the tanks for support on high ground. They had greater reach, and could penetrate compounds that we could not. They were awesome to have. Often if we were in TIC we just had to get the Leos to start the engines in Price an Taliban would stop shooting.
@grablehart3014
5 жыл бұрын
The answer to every question in the US Army: METT-TC (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops, Time, Civilian Consideration) basically the answer for the video
@ew4525
5 жыл бұрын
Infantry always was a great force even without tanks while tanks without infantry is in a very bad conditions
@carelianspitz
7 жыл бұрын
In addition I personally would have light tanks (not a ifv) to be supporting infantry in cases when there is a threat to infantry but not to a light tank. Then mbt's should be in support/reserve and counter enemy tanks/vehicles and when opportunity opens then make a breakthrough against enemies positions. I think there is a opening for a light tank/tank destroyer for many nations. I am from Finland and we have heavily wooded areas, lakes/rivers and swamps and a light tank is more than suited here. There is so much natural cover here so that the light tank/tank destroyer is all what is needed for infantry support. Mbt's resources imo is wasted in this role so light tanks! The mbt's are much useful imo in larger groups doing their worse elsewhere.
@bobbobskin
7 жыл бұрын
This of course raises on of the great political discussions, which I recall discussing with a Capt in charge of a group of Warrior FV. The American idea is that the basic unit is a BFV + troops. The British view is that the Troops are the basic fighting unit, and once dismounted from the Warrior (which is a kick arse vehicle - props) the Warrior is fire support for the troops, who are there to do the job, not the other way around. My background was as a civvy attach. In war zones, I agree that it's Infantry assisted with Mechanised. not Mechanised with Infantry.
@bobbobskin
7 жыл бұрын
Very interesting observation, much of your view is straight out of the British army playbook, on how to use BMT APC's,AFV and infantry. Effectively, you are arguing the case for "Armoured Infantry" in British parlance (Warrior plus troops FV510), as against "Mechanised Infantry" such as the operation of units with FV432 Bulldog, (similar to the US M113). It should be noted, the US M2 Bradley, vehicle + crew plus a carry load of max 6 soliders at normal equipment load, or M3 vehicle + crew plus 2 soliders with tow missiles (which in practice lacks much infantry force multiplier) vs Warrior which is vehicle + crew + 7 embarked fully geared up - with millan. In practice, UK battlefield practice using warrior is closer to that of US Stryker M1126 Infantry Carrier Vehicle use, although the US still view the M1126 as the "basic unit" supported by infantry, rather than treating it as the infantry "bus" with a mounted squad machine gun. The US view, say of the Cougar (which is effectively the same vehicle as the UK Mastiff) is that it was put into theatre as the JERRV, being - Joint EOD Rapid Response Vehicle or Joint Engineering Rapid Response Vehicle. IE, something to drive bomb disposal units around in. The fact the US put this vehicle in as an engineering "taxi" rather than seeing it as a battlefield weapon was very telling. The UK however have used Mastiff (the same vehicle) as the base platform for Wolfhound (Heavy Tactical Support Vehicle), Mastiff 2 'Protected Eyes' (anti IED) Mastiff PPV (Protected Patrol Vehicle) in a crew + 8, and Ridgeback, where very much the "unit" is the infantry,
@theromanorder
Жыл бұрын
Some other things are enemy infantry can fire javalans or anti tank rifle... supporting infantry take them out... Iver a exstra supporting element (like air force, artillery, counter drones, electronic stuff) a secstion of infantry armed with anti drone rifles, or if a tank has a anti drone mashine gun or even missles then these can all counter drone strikes Plus active protection systems help for this defense
@MatoVuc
7 жыл бұрын
i can easily envision a situation where the best spot for a tank is 500-800 meters behind the infantry, supporting their assault on an enemy position with precise direct fire of HE and HEFrag munitions.
@FalcoGer
7 жыл бұрын
when flying a sim, I really don't have a lot of problems with killing tanks, even with AA and SAM presence, even when risky, it's usually quite possible to avoid the missile when you get ample warning. in an air war, air defenses go first. that doesn't help either. Although I do help that you can take risks in a sim that you wouldn't in real life, you can't just wait for your ground forces to kill the enemy air defense before you use your airforce offensively.
@diligentone-six2688
6 жыл бұрын
Depending on the Situation of the Battle. If the Infantry is Facing Machine Gun fire or Armored Vehicles then MBTs should go First. But when Armored Vehicles are Facing Small Arms fire and Booby Traps even in Tight Places or Street Fighting then Infantry should go First.
@Thullin00
5 жыл бұрын
In 90% of the cases infantry should lead the attack to clear out difficult terrain in the enemy front line which could prove hazardous to the tanks and to capture observation points for a concentrated artillery barrage and in the follow up of that the tanks are meant to break through the weakened part of the front and spread out behind enemy lines.
@brucebartup6161
Жыл бұрын
Why would we attack? As opposed to say infiltrating, reconnoiter ing, indentifying targets, calling in Arty to targets. Then move forward with heavy armor support, to take out anything we missed.? Is main force assault against prepared positions really still an option? How about tactical withdrawal? Consider that any hot pursuit would be on known territory and the advancing enemy has nbo knowledge where we've built bunkers laid mines etc Or strategic withdrawal, surender insurgency. Any comparisons with current examples would be unwelcome. I think? For all these reasons, attack is surely less attractive?
@andreylebedenko1260
4 жыл бұрын
I suggest one to study Berlin operation of Red army back in 1945. In nuts shell -- tanks in chess formation with troops on opposite side of the street -- tank on the left, troops on the right, tank on the right, troops on the left (of course behind the tank).
@lukekieburtz4323
5 жыл бұрын
The way i look at it is that recon teams can move ahead and find those armored positions and relay back to the tanks and anti tank crews where to assault, who goes first would depend on a number of variables, however i think that have infantry go first and relay back targets and information would be more effective due to the fact that they are a smaller target and can gather Intel quicker than big heavy assault vehicles. tanks should be fought with infantry and tanks leading the way, infantry should be fought with IFV's and infantry leading the way. However I have never been on the battlefield so I cant speak to the effect on the soldier, i am purely speaking from what I know of the way infantry and vehicles operate. I would love to hear a veterans perspective on my perspective. The only thing that I can say for sure is that casualties will happen in war, its impossible to not have casualties, however i think that there are plenty of ways to mitigate that one of which is gathering Intel before assaulting, however this would be slower than traditional fast assault plans, however i think that slow and steady is safer and in some ways faster than moving forward as fast as possible. I cant remember what the seals say about movement but its something along the lines of slow is smooth, smooth is fast.
@Sun-Tzu-
7 жыл бұрын
Air strikes are the equaliser in war, it doesn't matter if you are Infantry, armour, or ship, the air strike will kill it.
@Psiberzerker
5 жыл бұрын
"Tanks, and IFVs are designed to work together..." When they're up against: Heavy Fortifications, Artillery, or other Tanks. In some operations, like Urban Assault, Tanks are essentially useless, because people have the buildings to strike the tanks, and the Infantry are only slowed down protecting them, to the detriment of what they're there to do. (House clearing, holding Strategic positions, clearing throughways, or whatever.) In this case, IFVs work with the Infantry to give them Mobility, Protection, and a Command Post (With a Radio, which is indispensable) and Supplies. In an Engineering mission, like fortifying such positions, mineclearing, or clearing an avenue for Supply (That's full of Tank Traps, and Antitank Mines/IUDs) you can substitute an Engineering Vehicle instead of one of the IFVs/APCs, but until the area is Clear, you don't want the tanks there. They will only jeapordize the mission. Better to have them out of range, to provide support fire as impromptu Artillery.
@Psiberzerker
5 жыл бұрын
I can give a great example, from personal experience: Sarajevo, we (The UN) drove around in VBLs, which was a French made IFV. I'm also going to go on record to say, that's the finest vehicle I've ever had the pleasure of being in/working out of. (As a Field Fluid Power Technician. Basically working on Hydraulics where necessary. At one point under Mortar, and Machinegun fire until I got one of the vehicles running again.) Great Armor against small arms, and fragments, NBC protection, visibility, ingress/egress, amphibious (Drive in, drive out without stopping, let alone getting out to convert it to land/river mode) It would have really sucked to have had tanks there, quite honestly. Mortars are Top Attack weapons. They strike the top, where the armor is least effective, and most of the critical equipment, not to mention crew hatches are. What really makes them deadly in streets is they don't need LoS on you, they can lob charges right over buildings from over a block away. We never would have gotten out of there if we had 1 Abrams to babysit.
@Psiberzerker
5 жыл бұрын
Tanks are the best "Tip of the Spear" in asymmetric warfare. A good example was the start of Desert Storm. After Desert Shield, we sent in the Abrams, which had better targeting, and sensors (Infared, and Low Light Optics) than the Elite Iraqui force. Which were Elite, roughly the top 5 armies of the world, but they had Tanks that didn't have the sites, and targeting capabilities, so they got wiped. Not a single Abrams was lost, mostly because they could fire Precisely on the move. The Iraquies had to stop to fire Accurately, they could basically lay down suppresive fire, against Chobham that basically took a direct hit from most of the APs that were fired at them. (First field test of Chobham, incidentally. I called Desert Storm a live fire field test for a whole lot of systems. The Abrams passed, the Apaches failed, and had to be upgraded. So, they sent in the A-10s, once air dominance was established.)
@PvtRyan-ke4of
7 жыл бұрын
My opinion is that tanks should be always first, as long as they are fighting on flat terrein. In the city infantry should always be first and in woods they should stay together due to limited mobility
@yeaaight1689
5 жыл бұрын
This question is really just situational based.
@anoldlazylion
5 жыл бұрын
Thousands of years ago the Chinese invented chess to teach its military commanders that different units have different capabilities. Victory belongs to the one that can maximise their strengths and expose their enemies weekness. Therefore, sometimes tanks, sometimes, air power, etc, etc
@valdo345jr
3 жыл бұрын
its referred to as "combined arms" for a reason. neither unit can do it all.
@Caliell
7 жыл бұрын
You can argue between infantry and tankers who should lead the charge, but 99% of the time it is recon that happens to be the ones leading the charge.
@syhaidar7489
4 жыл бұрын
Against enemy armor and infantry, tank go first Against enemy anti tank, infantry go first That's what COH have taught me
@Achill101
Жыл бұрын
@15:58 mines are banned from the battlefield? That's news to me. Anti-personell mines might be outlawed, but anti-vehicles mines are still a legitimate weapon of war, just like bullets, rockets, and grenades.
@vantom6194
5 жыл бұрын
Answer according to Blitzkrieg doctrine TANKS supported by mechanized infantry,artillery and air support... FUN FACTS: the largest military operation/invasion is Operation Barbarossa consist of almost 4 million military personnel from the axis powers. FUN FACTS: Battle of KIEV is the largest encirclement in the history of warfare (by number of troops).616,304 killed or captured 84,240 wounded and sick 411 tanks and SPG's destroyed 343 aircraft destroyed 28,419 guns and mortars lost
@kanskejonasidag1
7 жыл бұрын
I've always felt like if only APS systems like the trophy and arena could be developed a bit more and "catch up" with the developments of atgm:s, the tank would once again be the king of the ground battlefield. Honestly I really don't understand why it's not developed more than it is, it really is the logical next step for tank development. Sure, it's expansive and advanced, but so is all the atgm technology we have.
@MrViki60
6 жыл бұрын
The Infantry, Tanks costs millions and are precious, soldiers are cheaps and numerous.
@Mr12ob
5 жыл бұрын
Infantry, during the First Chechen War. The Russians send so many tanks without any infantry in an urban environment that they all got destroyed. The Chechen filming the chechens shooting the RPG-7s were arguing about who gets to shoot the next one. The Russians as always use tanks as a blunt instrument like they did in WW2. I was born in the Soviet Union, so don't feel offended. It's true. And most of the guys were conscripts who were burned alive inside of those tanks fearing getting out. The Marine Corps doctrine of combined warfare is the best way to fight.
@abnfscoord
6 жыл бұрын
One critical error in the video, Artillery is the KING of battle. Artillery creates more casualties and can disrupt any advance and also provide a "wall of steel" to protect freindlies. The M712 copperhead (155mm) is a laser guided round that defeats all known armor out to 16Km and the M982 Excalibur providing GPS guided fire out to 57Km. Artillery can deliver precision guided munitions to minefields (FASCAM). Artillery can be the offensive and defensive punch that wins wars! A simple question is whay do the Russians have Artillery divisions?
@williambuchanan77
7 ай бұрын
Tanks are getting more vulnrable on the battlefield nowadays, if it's possible to eliminate one with a cheep drone and some boomcake tanks will need drone defense. To date the cheapest form of drone defense I know of seems to be wild birds of prey, those critters don't have much of a liking for drones flying in their territory.
@jacobrobinson5606
7 жыл бұрын
8:35 is that a bottle in the smoke launcher
@chaseviking5096
5 жыл бұрын
Infantry should always lead. Infantry can see stuff on the ground and surrounding areas that the tanks can not.
@pckkaboo6800
5 жыл бұрын
Hiding behind tank looks good for me
@kharnthebetrayero9036
7 жыл бұрын
question when are armored assault tanks going to be a thing
@itzcoatlmedina1
5 жыл бұрын
what costs more? training infantry or building tanks?
@gameram6382
2 жыл бұрын
Amour can't go forward with out infantry support.
@attananightshadow
5 жыл бұрын
Clone the guy that used a longbow in WW2; he should always initiate an attack.
@Kriegter
4 жыл бұрын
That's why mechanized infantry is the best
@CarstenOepping
4 жыл бұрын
of course tanks can do city-battles. and Tanks can do spearhead attacks. the point is: can i save lives.... the main thing is: can i loose a tank or not. if the tank is highly sophisticated and expensive: no. but if the tank is rugged and cheap: yes. for instance: with a few dozen T-55 you clear out an entire city. and if you lost a few: who cares as long as the crew survives. an T-55A cost 200 tsd. an M1A4 cost 9 mio. and IF you need a AT round you have a Quality tank in second row
@sturgeonslaw9287
7 жыл бұрын
I would contend neither tanks nor troops would be the point of the spear, but rather the air elements. With fighters gaining control of the airspace above the battlefield, ground attack planes and helicopters, and even armed drones, should lead the armored and mechanized infantry against the foes. But even then that needs to be preceded by as heavy a barrage of artillery, from barrels or rockets, as can be delivered. Better to risk a few dozens or hundreds of lives before one gambles thousands.
@knight2003w
5 жыл бұрын
I opine that they go well together.
@petersmythe6462
6 жыл бұрын
One thing I think people often forget is that tanks have TERRIBLE power/weight. Arguably worse than the short burst power of an infantrymen. Compare any plane or car. Even a truck designed to carry something the weight of a tank will be more nimble than the tank it could carry. F.E. type 95 Ha-go vs modern landscaping truck with a Type 95 Ha-go in the bed.
@zulubro
7 жыл бұрын
Open terrain, tanks first. Wooded or urban terrain, infantry first.
@tahahormozan
7 жыл бұрын
Can you make a video about tank and attack helicopter tactics
@peterking2651
5 жыл бұрын
Tanks! Infantry must never go forward of the gun trunnions of any tank ready to fire. If the tank is firing SABOT, the pot and petals will fly off, killing anyone in the way. Also none of the crew can see if you have troops standing in front of the co-ax. Imagine a soft target presents itself, the gunner will engage with the co-ax. Finally we have smoke, tanks typically use phosphorous smoke, now imagine what happens to infantry when we discharge our smoke. Also never stand behind a tank, it WILL jockey backwards. The orders will include where the infantry is to de-bus. So who feels like going in front of a tank.
@brokenthunder4163
7 жыл бұрын
we need tanks to be like WW1 tanks with heavy cannons and mgs on the sides . infact why not create a 4 turreted strret fighter tank the turrets could be remote controlled while the infantry sit inside the hull with has armor made to defeat ATGMS/ Heavy cannons and Heat rounds.
@ahviper5871
5 жыл бұрын
the time using tanks in front has ended becuase tanks can be destroyed so easily especially in urban battles inside city with all kind of rpgs anf atgm, all what tank can do is provide cover fire using the smoke and dirt of shells explosion to block enemy snipers sight and clear possible side bombs or barring streets for short moment of time so infantry use it as cover crossing
@veronicalogotheti1162
Жыл бұрын
From world war two tanks were off with a bazooka
@whydoievenbothertoputthish2199
6 жыл бұрын
Bomb everything to shit so when groundforces come its just to mop up the rest like the frontline moves fast these days
@jamesvandemark2086
2 жыл бұрын
Voila!- The Merkava?
@phobics9498
7 жыл бұрын
its like this tanks pushes forward infantry covers the tanks if there were no tanks it would be realy hard to push forward(infantry would have hard time pushing through) if there were no infantry it would be really hard to push forward(tanks would be killed) (im telling this like if the friendlies abandoned tanks or infantry not if all world abandoned them)
@collindee8370
6 жыл бұрын
why not put seats on the outside or back of tank, if engaged the tank can stop and the troops can jump off and begin defending
@kansascityshuffle8526
5 жыл бұрын
Your ally’s infantry followed by your infantry then your tanks
@andrew9371
Жыл бұрын
The correct answer is both infantry needs to be there to guard the armor and the armor protects the infantry from other threats like mechanized units
@oscarsmith179
7 жыл бұрын
Well tank on tank warfare is so rare nowadays but all units can take on enemy tanks if need be. I would like to be a tank commander so obviously I'm in favor of tanks.
@Mrcool179
4 жыл бұрын
Whats that intro music??
@goju09alt9
7 жыл бұрын
I didn't watch the video, but the answer might be mortars, or howitzers. Maybe a nuke, then there is no need for attack.
@i_smoke_ghosts
7 жыл бұрын
thoroughly enjoyed this and as an active armchair/bed General i stil follow the doctrine of infantry supports tanks supports infantry. thank you.
Пікірлер: 960