Infantry or Tanks - Which Should Lead An Attack?

Tanks and Infantry work hand in hand and side by side. One without the other and they rely heavily on one another to support a assault or any kind of battlefield manuevers. But in todays modern battlefield, who is the first to get into the fight and lead the sprearhead of a armoured force?
Do tanks roll in first and hope other infantry do not knock them out before they even make it to the oppsoing tanks?
Or do the infantry head first and clear the infantry out ahead and hope the tanks are not going to lead the attack?
Ideally its a mix of both, but its a complex and very subjective tactical process.
So lets talk about it!
Hope you enjoy!
-------------Please Like, Share and Subscribe!-----------------
Check out my store: shop.spreadshirt.ca/MatsimusG...
Wish to donate to support my channel? - Paypal link: paypal.me/Matsimus
Come chat with me! Get Discord Free! Here is my server: / discord
Add me on Steam: Matsimus
Facebook: profile.php?...
Twitter: @MatsimusGaming
Please help support my Patreon: www.patreon.com/user?u=308175...
Matsimus Gaming
Infantry or Tanks - Which Should Lead An Attack?

[@thehaloguy117]

Their front armour is thickest at the front - Matsimus 2017

[@Freyfrank]

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]

Lol

[@heyhoe168]

@@Freyfrank back and side armours are thickest at the front too. :D

[@randomlyentertaining8287]

Why is your comment not the most liked? XD

[@ethanviolet1]

Front to op pls nerf

[@connorquerin]

Here's the correct answer without watching the twenty minute video: It depends on the situation! Excellent video nonetheless mate.

[@_Matsimus_]

Connor Querin it's a rhetorical question really. Thanks though :-)

[@abnfscoord]

That is exactly correct! Terrain and even time of day can dictate.

[@Pallium_Industries]

Yay, METTC!

[@orinredgrave]

@John Casale even with limited info it would still depend for example against an asymmetrical Guerrilla style Force the tanks might be able to get in quicker vs another armored column that has much more anti-tank systems plus it's on the supporting Infantry, even if you don't know that much about their set up for anything just knowing who you're fighting might change your decision or where you're fighting like Urban versus open planes or Forest again it depends

[@paulmacfarlane207]

The germans were the best at using tanks in battle .And no the russians did not win the battle of kursk it was that Dday happened and hitler had to stop the attack.At the end of the day the germans were still on the field.

[@theoshorthouse3945]

Its simple tanks go first in open terrain and infantry in close quarter/urban to clear the way of concealed threats.

[@annoyedchef7124]

Also forest with only few roads should have flanking infantry to go and sweap and recon for guerrilla units from the roadside ambush sites. And if you take a antipersonel mine and 20kg tnt or few artillery shells before the mine on the road and run detcord between u have a quite nasty trap that blows from a mine clearing device. Now the muricans have a system to shoot a long explosive planket to blow wide and hundreds meters long patches.

[@neilgriffiths6427]

Vaguely true - but I suspect it's always more complicated than that.

[@mississippirebel1409]

From my 10 plus years in the US army, it really isn't practical for infantry to perform the role of a MBTs. Think of it this way, a MBT is just a bunker on tracks with a large cannon that can fire a lot of different rounds from anti armor and HEP rounds. A infantry platoon or company cannot carry anywhere near that kind of firepower. Yes they have a few anti tank weapons, but they can't carry that many and those types of weapons are far to expensive to waste, whereas a tank round doesn't cost nearly as much and can fire a lot of rounds very fast. Tanks are great at taking a position, just not very good at holding them. That is were infantry come into play. Also you have to take into consideration what the target is and the terrain when deciding who will lead. In a built up enviroment, infantry should normally lead the way by clearing each structure, but in a more open enviroment, the tank should always lead and the infantry should provide security for the tanks. That is as simple as I can explain it for all you civilians. Tanks such as the Abrams have very powerful and advance sensors and optics, so they can detect and spot targets from a very long range in eithe day or night and in any kind of weather. Normally infantry won't have that kind of advantage. Also you would be very suprised at how quite and fast an Abrams is. It will be up on you before you realize what the hell is going on. Sometimes it can be harder than you think to tell in which direction a tank is coming from, depending on what kind of terrain and enviroment you are in.

[@SamyH_amSet]

I believe tanks are here to stay, but only in wide open terrains were they can defend themselves and move freely, using their speed, firepower and range to their best advantage. In more difficult terrains, tanks get stuck, ambushed from close distance and the big ass gun cant be used to its full potential. It sounds stupid, but i can really imagine smaller walkers could be the future here. With like 4 legs they are not bound to roads and can easily travel over ruins and rubble, through rivers and over obstacles. They would field something like a 30mm cannon & machine gun to engage infantry and IFVs, and a few missiles against heavy armor and helicopters. Knocking out a tank isnt that difficult anymore, it comes down to mobility, advantagous positions and fast firepower. A small walker would perfectly fit that role.

[@georgerobert4709]

Golan Heights 1967 The israelis might not agree :)

[@BoleDaPole]

Lol, MANPADs go boom 😎

[@daljiba]

when it was victory Cavalry claimed it out right Gunner boasted of it calibre infantryman stood silent with victory at his feet __ Fd Marshal Wavell

[@AgrippaMaxentius]

Depends, scout infantry should keep an eye out for enemies ahead of tanks particularly in modern warfare situations. Although at the same time Hollywood seems to always portray armor up first, as seen in films like "Fury" tanks should always support infantry only unless you're in a wide open field. Obviously Hollywood films rarely get it right, with tanks way out in the open like sitting ducks

[@hornypervert3781]

Panzer II was specialized against infantry.

[@traceyhawj]

First off you mention hollywood, which auto maticly disqualifly your opinion. The aswser is , it depends on the situation.

[@1mol831]

But if you use infantry there will be higher casualties

[@joonpark6237]

Logical decision and combat experience will do

[@rafopderand8524]

The coordination between tanks and infantry sucked in the U.S. army during WW2 - tanks pushed too far ahead of the infantry on a regular basis - so "Fury" portrayed that fact right, perhaps unintentionally.

[@weissjaeger2018]

Anime girls with ancient Japanese warships spirit

[@clefsan]

at least "Kantai Collection" is not as ridiculous as "Girls and Panzer" xD

[@juzloopz24]

Uppotte

[@MagikarpMan]

I hate that game

[@silvadossantos6803]

Or WWII battle ship sailing into the sideral space.

[@MotokoTai]

In an urban enviroment , infanrty first in my opinon

[@miguellopes2452]

Yeah same let the tanks be the support in that case in open terrain tanks first and infantry on the support

[@MrFrenkyCRO]

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]

tanks always behind,becuase now you hv weapons range from 200 meter to 5500 meter can get tanks blown to pieces

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

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]

In the city, infantry can move through buildings while tanks move through streets. They can move together.

[@Stormgebieder]

Reminds me on that scene in "A Bridge Too Far" where after the conquering of a bridge the tanks stopped their advance because of lack of infantry support.

[@sturgeonslaw9287]

Funny. I thought the British stopped their advance to brew a cuppa.

[@morammofilmsph1540]

Sturgeon's Law IMO the reason why the Irish Guards stopped is because of the orders given to them. I noticed in films such as A Bridge too Far and Band of Brothers that because of the orders given to the tankers they werent able to effectively achieve their mission. Band of Brothers: A US paratrooper asked Brit tankers to put shells in a building which was concealing a tiger tank but because of their orders not to do unnecessary destruction of property, they werent able to shoot at the tiger. A Bridge too Far: Again, a US Paratrooper asked Brit tankers to proceed and help the pinned Brit paratroopers in the town ahead. Again, because of orders, they werent able to support the paratroopers in time. It's also surprising that these happened in the failed Operation Market Garden.

[@sturgeonslaw9287]

Jeremiah, I watched on here a documentary about the battle of Sicily a few days ago. In it was an interview with a US veteran, a paratrooper who was one of the many scattered all over the island due to high winds during the drop. He and a few of his comrades linked up with the British troops tasked with moving up towards Syracuse. He reports the force was moving north against moderate resistance when a whistle blew and all the Brits stopped and sat down. Puzzled, the American looked at his equally confused US buddies then asked what was up with this, and got the reply that it was tea-time and was thus time to stop and brew up a pot. Deny it if you will, but this WAS a prevalent practice in the British army then, and for all I know may still be so today. I say this not to disparage the undoubted courage or fighting spirit of the British troops, but simply to state what is accepted historical fact.

[@morammofilmsph1540]

Sturgeon's Law very much agreed. I think they also showed a scene like that in A Bridge Too Far. I dont remember... I just stated my opinion which I thought was a plausible reason why the tankers stopped their advance in the movie.

[@Venezolano410]

Has anyone bothered to ask a veteran of the Irish Guards who was there if indeed they stopped to brew a cup of tea or refuse to blast a building possibly hiding a Tiger tanks so as not to do unnecessary damage? It seems like hearsay passing as fact.

[@Capitanvolume]

An officer with a whistle and sword should obviously lead.

[@brianmead7556]

Mounted on his horse with his very finest cap, cash, and epaulettes.

[@theheartland1861]

When I was in a Cavalry Regiment, we had infantry, scouts, mortar crews and tanks, along with air Cavalry that also included attack helicopters. Having some of each was always a plus

[@bigmikem90]

I was in the 3rd ACR, Brave Rifles!

[@metanumia]

Once again, THANK YOU, for these regular military, tank, and tech analysis and discussion videos! I really look forward to these and will continue my support on Patreon because of your work on these. :)

[@tankninja1]

Not much has really changed since WWII. In restrictive terrain infantry will lead the way since the infantry can clear all the little nooks and crannies the armor can't reach. But in wide open fields and deserts armor will lead the way since infantry can't hide nearly as well. Plus NATO has a lot of aerial assets available relative to a lot of individual countries that makes setting up good AT positions difficult.

[@russellworden5324]

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]

russell worden METT-TC is the answer for EVERY question! 👍😀 (my edit: I left out an essential T)

[@russellworden5324]

limescale onetwo Roger, have had that answer given plenty of times. was easier and left response shorter than to go into more detail.

[@Rasgonras]

What is METT-C? not all of us have been in any kind of army.

[@Limescale12]

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]

+limescale onetwo Thank you very much, that was very helpful.

[@maximilienrobespierre7927]

I'd wager that they should always go together. Remember what happened to Soviet tanks in 1941-1942? Germans would just run up, slap antitank mines or jerry cans onto the engine deck under the turret and detonate it with a grenade. Or break open the ventilation grate of the engine and stick a grenade directly inside the engine compartment.

[@tristanbackup2536]

Oh boy, they learnt the hard way on the way back to Berlin in 44-45.

[@rerbitd7094]

Did the Germans do this? What is the name of the bottle which burned the equipment? Oh yes - Molotov cocktail. Something tells me that this is not a German name.

[@ericolsen5592]

@@rerbitd7094 There's a lot to unpack here but basically you're wrong because both sides used them (very rarely) and they were referred to as "fire bottles" in Soviet manuals

[@amistrophy]

@@rerbitd7094 finland would like a word with you

[@kavinravichandran2931]

@@rerbitd7094 The Molotov cocktail was a name coined by the Finns during their war against the Soviets in 1940. The Finnish troops named it after the Soviet foreign minister and used to destroy many Soviet tanks during the Winter war.

[@ArsenicApplejuice]

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]

*seize, clear and hold

[@chiiesa]

The point of a tank is literally to attack heavily fortified positions (these key objectives will be fortified)

[@boanil7948]

Pressed like instantly just because of the topic. You are running the channel of my wet dreams, sir.

[@thenb5094]

Yaaasss, finally. i have a reason to not sleep! also, can you do a video on the countermeasures used on tanks?

[@Surv1ve_Thrive]

Good content in the video Matsimus. Liked and subbed.

[@alocassia]

i'm a tank gunner in the saf and i really enjoy your videos! i think it'd be really cool if you did a video about the effectiveness of infantry at weapons!

[@madlyawww]

At 8:40 there is a bottle in the smoke launcher.

[@pwrserge83]

Unless you're fighting on terrain having a topographical resemblance to a dinner table. (or have REALLY good recon assets available) Infantry. Infantry perform a screening function and push out to lock down enemy positions and force strengths. Then you bring down the armored hammer.

[@richardrobinson4869]

Great video thanks for making this type of video.

[@sparty1139]

I figured it out! The perfect solution! Thanks for this vid, it was excellent!

[@danielaramburo7648]

The tank is not only useful, but it will boost the morale of the soldiers. Going into combat with a giant tank on your side next to you is very comforting.

[@randomlook26]

Drones go in first, then the tactical decision who is next is taken ;) no matter what. many armies around the world deploy armored recon units (on foot or fast moving small vic's like buggies and motorcycels) to go ahead of the armor, in cases there is no solid intel on what they are going to face. the biggest problem nowadays for tanks in my opinion is: they are heavily reliant on electronics that can be shutdown and tempered with making the tank far less effective on the field.

[@TechNinja_420]

i agree with the electronics part , they should be a addition to the features not a replacement ... and also the turrets are in my opinion a problem too with handheld rocket- and grenadelauncher ,they are kinda obsulete

[@castor3020]

Ah, armoured recon. Basically you drive really fast along the terrain and hope to god that the enemy misses you when they spot you.

[@josephahner3031]

And that's why you train on your Gunners Auxiliary Sight and learn to shoot with stab failure and using the hand cranks. Just in case.

[@sanjaykrishnannair8153]

Use an airborne drone. like the quad copter but built for high endurance surveillance.

[@SeraphimRoad]

@@sanjaykrishnannair8153 The EMT Luna drone comes to mind of the German Bundeswehr. Its a light 40kg fixwing drone with a range of 100 km, 90km/h speed and an endurance of 8 hours. Its ideal for short range reconnaissance. Its small and light enough to be deployed anywhere from the light recon vehicle Fennek. The 4th Recon Company of the 291st Light Infantry Battalion uses them. A sister battalion of my old unit.

[@dancingpotplant]

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 👍😄

[@paulgerald5808]

Love this channel . Thank you . From a former Tor Scott 1973 to 1974 .

[@freshfrozen3035]

Did u ever have a exercises with imperial Iranian troops by any chance?

[@shaheerhayatt3495]

In short both tanks and Infantry compliment each other.

[@leohard1814]

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]

Laggin Dragon Games Correction sir, it was on 1689

[@leohard1814]

corrected

[@Riceball01]

Minor nitpick, horse borne forces are called cavalry, Calvary is a mountain and has a religious context.

[@leohard1814]

Riceball01 It was my phone auto correct, I just didn't feel like fixing it lol

[@mateusz73]

idk what you originally put but the Siege of Vienna was 1683 not 89

[@DFWTB9506]

I could see them developing smaller, more mobile/ agile tanks that move quickly around the battlefield that are designed more to scout out new positions and locate enemy positions, but mainly focused on keeping eyes and using positioning to maintain distance and reinforce/ disrupt enemy advancement

[@nikolaysargsyan6349]

Such tanks existed and fought the first part of WW2 (I think Polish were particularly fond of them?) but at that time they didn't show much value. But yes, with modern breakthroughs in armour design, I can also see the limited return of such vehicles for niche operations.

[@i_smoke_ghosts]

thoroughly enjoyed this and as an active armchair/bed General i stil follow the doctrine of infantry supports tanks supports infantry. thank you.

[@chrisrotvega1646]

now remember folks this is an opinion video for a hypothetical question dont get your panties in a bunch if you dont hear the opinions you want to hear and throw a hissy fit over it if so I would suggest. btw nice video mat I dont agree with all of your thoughts but I love the fact that this may bring up a discussion later on.

[@kamiloniszczuk9685]

Actually, multi-purpose tank rounds designed to engage soft targets with airburst capability are getting more and more popular in multiple armies, both western and eastern, and they are extremally deadly against such targets as infantry or even low flying aircraft. Combined with the fact that fire control systems on tanks are being constantly upgraded, getting longer engagement range and better sight image quality, the tanks in the recent years have well adapted to a diverse combat environment where they have to engage multiple kinds of threats.

[@kmiglia]

I thoroughly enjoy your videos! Might you do something on the recovery and maintenance units?

[@a350fsx7]

So future conflicts are moving into urban area.In this are you need a nice infantery and the tanks and artillery pushing from further away.But the infantery fighting vehicels,like the CV90, aren't armoured enough.Armour is heavy and for that you need better engines and you can hear better engines from further away.So you see the topic is complicated but it is cool to hear something about that!Great video mate

[@masterchief7301]

I would say it would be a case by case basis, for example if a commander expects, or even needs its troops to fallback, then having the tanks on the back could provide a nice fire support area in which to fall back and you won't have to worrry as much of tanks out running your infantry (which I think should (in an assault) be mechanized

[@javik4091]

A row of tanks pushing up hammering the enemy positions with rows of infantry stacked up behind the tanks has to be the best way to go in my opinion. The tanks can move up slowly at walking pace while protecting the infantry from small arms fire until they have a safe spot to spread out.

[@alephkasai9384]

Javik This isn't the best way to do it in an urban area as tanks can't react as fast as infantry and enemies can easily target their weaker armour segments.

[@jamiekrutzfeldt3522]

Javik aircraft /big target

[@d1n0fr0g7]

the exhaust fumes and shit billowing out the rear of a tank would be enough to stop infantry from following up behind it... did you get this idea from that scene in 'Fury'?

[@tunaconsuma]

Yes, but exhaust fumes and mud being thrown backwards could demorilize troops. mortars landing around the tank could kill infantry

[@fallout0624]

Staying behind the tank is one of the best ways to move with troops in a higher threat environment compared to riding on the tank. Exhaust fumes and mud being thrown at you are simply one part of it. A tank is great cover for instance but on the other side the tank is a target each variation has its problems and benefits. While riding a tank you have the least amount of cover are part of the target the tank can move at a faster pace then if the troops are following. Following behind helps give the troops some idea of safety knowing they have cover and they are not the primary target. Compromises

[@RottiDog100]

salute and love the channel.

[@TJkiwiOWEG]

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.

[@trevorhart545]

Q. Where is the Artillery, that includes air support or air artillery. With artillery you can open a front that allows mechanised units to open up therefore allowing the rest of the infantry to exploit. You need Artillery then Tanks then Mechanised Infantry in open ground. In Street fighting tanks are extremely vunerable even with Chobham or Dorchester armour and RPG protection. So the answer said earlier is it depends on the situation. Horses for Courses.

[@alanch90]

Seems to me that active protection systems (which most tanks lack) will tip the balance on the tanks favor once again.

[@d1n0fr0g7]

if you're tank is working in conjunction with infantry though, the APS could actually contribute to lethal friendly fire.

[@alanch90]

Well if you are infantry near a tank that is attacked with ATGM you are in great danger anyway. APS could (and mos likely will) get smarter in order to intercept the threats at optimal distance from friendly forces.

[@olafweinzer5746]

APS fails if an IFV fires 30mm blasts and then an ATGM.

[@Ziz1337]

@Matsimus I kept thinking: "Man, this guy needs to work on a strategy video game!" The last series I used to enjoy was Company of Heroes 1/2. I haven't really seen a good and deep RTS game set in present day in a very long and you definitely seem to know a lot about the complexities of modern day military equipment, strategies and techniques.

[@Szycha8412]

Good work

[@boomboomshaketheroom2405]

Matsimus what is your thoughts on the effectiveness of Artillery in today's age of warfare? I am curious of your thoughts on this

[@spasoldatin6258]

I'm not sure he will reply, but if you want my opinion, it will never become obsolete. Even if the enemy finds some way to shoot every artillery shell out of the air, we'll eventually find some way to make it so that it doesn't matter. Technology just works that way. Technical theories aside, artillery is a staple in offensive and defensive warfare and any army that lacks it is inherently incomplete. Artillery is extremely important to disrupt, destroy, or otherwise damage the morale of hostiles in a particular area before launching an assault on it, and it is similarly useful when covering retreating troops. Defensively, it can be used to great effect in interrupting the flow of combat from what the enemy had originally planned (for instance, artillery critically damaging a supply line during an assault) and forcing the enemy commanders to make very difficult decisions about the positioning of their units leading up to and during the attack.

[@_Matsimus_]

Mark William Reid artillery will ALWAYS Be a huge part of a military force. It's progressing so far now that it's almost unfair in terms of smaller armies

[@spasoldatin6258]

I'm not sure you fully understand the role of artillery. Artillery is not exclusively used to clear our entrenched areas or areas with large masses of enemy troops (although it is fantastic at doing both of those things). Artillery is used for a vast number of reasons, but most generally it is used to inflict losses on the enemy and destroy their cover, emplacements, infrastructure, logistics/supplies, etc. In order to lower their combat effectiveness and deteriorate their morale. Artillery can also flush out areas that the enemy is suspected to be hiding in, and to provide smoke cover for friendly troops during maneuvers. Like I said before, (and as most others in the thread agree with,) artillery will almost certainly never become obsolete.

[@castor3020]

Any time you want to attack anywhere you want to saturate that terrain with artillery. This is especially important in mechanized assaults.

[@josephahner3031]

Artillery is king of battle. It kills everything. I was an Abrams crewman. I'm not afraid of tanks. I'm not afraid of infantry with ATGM's. I am afraid of the steel rain. Fortunately the Russians, Chinese, North Korea, and Iran are the only would be threats to the US that can use artillery effectively.

[@Chrispy_Moto]

So much inaccurat/wrong information. Anti tank mines are not banned. They are a firm part of NATO defensiv doctrin. A lot of modern AT mines are ment to destoy and not just immobilise (like the DM-12 PARM or the AT2 mine). IR protectiv smoke is common for smoke dischargers and artilery fired smoke. It very effectivly protects from IR guided ATGMs as long as the smoke screen is deployed fast enough.

[@_Matsimus_]

CHristoph Heinisch god you are just awesome. Can I be like you? Please teach me.

[@UniquelyAwful]

CHristoph Heinisch just anti-personnel mines are banned

[@masterofsteel]

Ummm...George Kush? Anti personnel mines are NOT banned. Only in the eu. Asia, Africa it is ON baybee! And, of course the ME as well.

[@UniquelyAwful]

masterofsteel you just said yourself that they're banned...so clearly they are, at least where I live

[@masterofsteel]

Ok. Let me clarify for you: Anti-personnel mines are TACITLY BANNED in the EU by Agreements brought about by princess Di. However, as someone else just pointed out elsewhere on this thread, the UK has stockpiles of the lil nasties in the event of war. And, I daresay so does everyone else who signed that ridiculous accord. That being said Asia still openly employs them, as does Africa, and the middle east. So, although there is a public piece of paper saying we will forego the use of anti p mines-it is just a ;wink and a nod' if you get my drift....

[@fpvillegas9084]

It depends on what kind of enemy and terrain you have. If the enemy doesn't have a lot of antitank systems, then the tank should lead. It's best to use them together. But whichever is chosen, never attack without any form of surprise. Avoid attacking in an obvious way. Try to out flank the enemy if terrain allows. Also it would be nice if a ground attack is preceded by airstrikes and artillery/missile bombardment. When the battle becomes chaotic enough for the enemy, then the tanks/infantry would usually get through.

[@WAJK2030]

Excellent video on the topic matsimus! In my opinion and experience, one would order the infantry /mech-inf to do the job. Heavy duty equipment should provide overwatch / general cover and be on Stand-by, in case their buddys on foot call 911. Only if u are sure about the amount and abilitys of enemy armoured forces in your target area, one would coordinate decisive strikes to gain certain ground. but this is only my favored policy. this differs from Mission and command to m&c. thank you!

[@truecerium4924]

Not sure about other armies but German brigades are mixed: tank brigades have armoured infantry units and vice versa. Back that up with the PzH2000 and an enemy is faced by a triple whammy: tank, infantry and artillery and all of them very fast and highly mobile (disclaimer: PzGren talking)

[@kalks4334]

True Cerium But without proper Anti-Air Support they will be ripped to pieces by some Air-to-Ground AT missiles.

[@truecerium4924]

mm... The German Air Force is kind of a mixed bag: after the war until the 80´s they were flying US models namely the Starfighter F-104. The German Tornado is a solid fighter bomber with EMS capabilities. Lately the air force is a disaster: the A400M can´t fly, the Eurocopter can´t fight and the Eurofighter is out of the pic as well

[@kalks4334]

True Cerium The Eurofighter lacks ECM capabilities and good long range missiles, but it can outmaneuver any Russian Jet in Close Combat Situations. It's a very good Jet for the European Theatre.

[@truecerium4924]

+Kalks + Average Josson as a concept yes, but the reality is quite different: due to problems w/ the fuselage the flying life of the airframes has been cut precautionally from 3000 to 1500 hours (Tornado 7000, F-35 8000). Due to quality problems the German Eurofighters are not allowed to bank steeply (there goes the dogfight capabilities) goo.gl/RKd6Pc and from the online website of the Spiege goo.gl/AEjxxel: Only about half of the jets are considered to be operational, many of them are more or less shut down because of missing spare parts and other problems.

[@truecerium4924]

+Average Joesson I think the strengh of the German Armed Forces lies still with their conventional army brigades. Other than that: Helicopters not flying, A400M not flying, the assault rifle G36 is crap and they are phasing out the MG3 - the German MoD has become the laughing stock of satire shows on TV. SAD! But give me the Leopard2/Marder/Puma/PzH2000 any day ;)

[@veterankasrkin7416]

What about active protection systems? Are they are not effective against ATGM's and rockets?

[@jonny2954]

Extremely effective.

[@ArmedSammy]

However they are also finite. And to be honest those are the last line of defense, so just like an infantryman taking cover even though the hostile fire coming at them is semi-inaccurate, a tank crew will retreat their vehicle to a more secure position to fire from if they start taking ATGM and rocket fire...because in both cases even though the chance of being killed is slim there's no reason to take chances when you're betting with your life and the lives of others.

[@jonny2954]

Sure they are finite. APS and armour protection in general isn't meant to be intentionally exposed. A MBT and IFV should be used like a fragile piece, searching cover just like an infantryman. But if shit hits the fan (if they get hit) it's more likely they survive. Sure, they can charge, but you really don't want to play sitting duck and totally rely on your APS/armour.

[@dankoz6340]

Yep, its only a matter of time before tanks become as complicated as naval vessels, close-in turrets, ECM, radar and many already have the capability to fire missiles through the barrel. We just need more Active and Passive systems to the point of becoming "landships". Without the WW1 perceptions and everything to do with high tech armour. Heck, even the Syrian Army have been implementing their own systems to deal with the mother load of ATGMs they've faced over 5+ years of war. defense-update.com/20170301_sarab-aps.html. Its supposed to be an indigenous system but could have also been funded or at least worked with Russia.

[@m.kozlov8461]

We use fucking rhinos, battle-brother not heretical main battle tanks

[@1985rbaek]

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.

[@jamesschweitzer1497]

I think in the future or coming soon, is that we will be seeing small and fast APC like vehicles, carrying infantry with specific roles. For example imagine a super sneaky armored car of some sort making its way to the enemy and deploying anti-armor armed infantry to take out the hard targets then back out of there, and follow up with a standard tank and mechanized infantry group as mop up.

[@whya2ndaccount]

Tanks lead vs Infantry lead = Depends on situation. Terrain? Threat? Rate of advance? CBRND Level? what forces you have been allocated? All impact the decision. Need to leverage off the strengths of the Combined Arms team. One size / Template does not fit all.

[@peterking2651]

Tanks, if you're in front of the tanks gun trunnions you risk death when the tank fires. Also remember the gunner can't always see grunts, especially when firing the coax. The pot & petals will also kill unprotected soldiers to the front when they fall away from Sabot rounds. The tank may also decide to fire smoke, which is phosphorus. So with all of the ways a tank can kill an unsuspecting grunt would you like to go in front of it when it's engaging the enemy.

[@fallout0624]

The driver also has a restricted field of view so he might not be able to see guys on the ground aswell

[@peterking2651]

fallout0624 The driver will pull his "sticks" when crossing a trench, causing it to collapse on the occupants.

[@karlp8484]

It mainly depends on terrain. In an urban situation, where tanks are the most vulnerable, push the infantry forward to go house by house if necessary to secure the area ahead of the tanks. In an open area, tanks lead with infantry disembarking only when required.

[@zefsios]

If you don't have enough tanks, you should move infantry first and tanks with infantry (as a reserve or support) second! Good video!

[@pupcat5]

Infantry lead the way, with tankers close enough behind to hear the cries for help!

[@generalcarlgustavfleischer368]

Matsimus, what do you think about tanks or in general armoured figthing vehicles being used in mountain warfare? I see that the chinese are developing a light tank (ZTQ i think) in order to have a more effective tank in that enviroment. It has been stated that the reason a light tank is better for mountain warfare is that it is smaller, weighs less and needs less logistical support. Any thougths?

[@lupahole]

The italians used light tanks to a limited extent against us (greece) in the mountains of albania during operation primavera (ww2). We had poor AT weapons and most were destroyed during the massive arty barages. And yet all their tanks, with very few exceptions, fell into ravines, crevices and the such and were rendered ineffective. There wasnt much need to fight them. They took out themselves. Tanks cant even deploy properly in line in mountains and thats assuming somewhat of a more accesible mountain terrain. In "real" mountains, tanks cant climb. They are stuck on the roads, in column formation, waiting to be blown by a flanking action from a height vantage.

[@ciprianganea759]

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.

[@arturs232]

Good point sir!

[@sincereeastman6972]

If tank leads attack tank gets taken out by AT, Infantry leads attack, gets taken out by sniper, so just send in both like a Blitzkrieg attack

[@pantherace1000]

Schwerpunkt (BlitsKrieg) is mostly about combined arms breaking a hole in a narrow front, then using mobile assets (tanks, Motorized/Mechanized Infantry/Recon) to exploit the breakthrough and advancing on the enemy's rear areas. this works in symmetrical warfare, but will usually fail in asymmetric warfare.

[@cool06alt]

" Infantry leads attack, gets taken out by sniper," this is the point why you have mechanized infantry though.

[@gabzdark07]

@@cool06alt The sniper won't shoot until they dismount. If they don't, then they are basically as vulnerable as tanks.

[@keshavsrivastava1956]

AT actually takes 3-5 direct right angled hits(mostly) to take out a tank. And even then the crew are idk how immortal that they scramble out and still resist.

[@Zulikas69]

Matsimus, what do you think about using electric engine in tanks? Noise and practicality as of now and future

[@nattygsbord]

If electric cars is a fantasy then electric tanks seems even more unlikely. There is not enough rare materials to replace more than 1% of the global car fleet with electric cars due the lack of rare materials on this planet. You could use Nickel-metal hydride batteries - but then there is only a short supply of Lanthanum on this planet. You could also use Lithium-ion_batteries as an alternative but then Lithium is in short supply too. Another interesting metal is Neodymium, and Neodymium magnets are used for kinds all kinds of modern technical stuff: computer harddrives, windturbine generators and in electric cars so their weight doesn't become too heavy. Nearly 100% of all global neodymium production occurs in China - which would be a strategic problem for western powers. Furthermore isn't there neighter enough neodymium on this planet to build enough windturbines to replace the global oil consumption. So if the world would try a large scale windpower production, then neodymium would fall in short supply and prices would go up and make it a costly material to use.

[@leethomson4497]

nattygsbord yeah science!

[@industrialdonut7681]

nuclear powered would work

[@nattygsbord]

Yes, but then you have to build the tank large as a submarine or a school bus. So maybe TOG3 is the tank for the future then :P

[@timlipinski2571]

Or better a Thorium MSR to power the Lasers and the electronic cannon that can fire to one hundred miles ! They would be placed at a sea port base (Green Zone) and/or river base. tjl

[@industrialdonut7681]

I felt like this could have been a really good video

[@2ndkombat]

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.

[@cwl94]

For now i dont think infantry will be able to engage a tank directly in the near future. the AT weapons get better but so does the armor or perhaps the ability to not get hit. all next generation tanks will have at least one sort of ADS, which will be a nightmare for highend AT weapons.

[@brianmead7556]

I think it was him who took a look at handheld antitank weapons. If not him, can't remember who. Essentially, just about any tank struck from not the frontal slope is going down in some manner if hit with something like an RPG-7, Javelin, LAAW, and so on. And if not a catastrophic kill, it can blind the tank, jam the turret, hurt the crew, or immobilize it. There are more than enough videos out there of tanks being destroyed by infantry weapons, including Abrams in Yemen.

[@fulcrum2951]

Tank kills aren't necessarily having their ammunition explode

[@oakwhelie]

Tanks are too focused at destroying other tanks and sacrifice everything else. If tanks only purpose is to destroy tanks, what if there are no tanks? Tanks should be reprioritized to support and engage Infantry just like how it used to be in ww2.

[@fulcrum2951]

That's the latest US tank doctrine right there and the old ww2 british doctrine, where they have tanks to fight tanks instead of specialized tank destroyers or anti tank teams to do the job

[@exen8650]

Tanks still have HMG's. As he said, they were originally moving pillboxes, and they still have that function.

[@brianmead7556]

Tanks being optimized just to kill other tanks is a very NATO view of them, hence why so may NATO tanks are built for overwhelming armor and gun. His looks at WarPac tanks shows that the eastern view of the tank is as a flanker and force multiplier for getting through fortifications, ripping up rear areas, and blocking retreats, hence the development more for having long ranges, low profiles, higher ROF's, and not specializing so much in tank-v-tank adaptations, while WarPac infantry very commonly carries large amounts of antitank weapons.

[@fulcrum2951]

The tanks use in warsaw pact wasn't really meant for destroying enemy armor but to breakthrough and exploit through the enemy lines in a deep operations doctrine

[@angelthetrueamericanwoman9006]

Depends on the situation like if there pinned down by fire the infantry fallows behind the armor but if it's in a urban environment the armor and infantry really lean on each other for support

[@Aquelll]

In Finland we do not have battle buddies anymore. A Jaeger squad has 9 men and they are broken into three combat teams of 3 men. If one gets injured one will give first aid while the 3rd man covers it and then both other will evacuate while the other 2 teams give cover it. When working with battle buddy system we realised that evacuating anyone alone is hell of a job and dedicating 2 men to do it is much better and more effective way. Also gets those 2 back into the formation faster because the evacuation does not take forever.

[@totallylegit6134]

attention! if you play call of duty or battlefield, you are not a weapon expert or a 4 star general. We wont take you seriously, just stay out of the comments

[@spasoldatin6258]

Thanks, but I think it was obvious.

[@puntoni]

totally legit Actually you will get destroyed if you drove out the tank wide in the open without the infantry support (i.e. Mechanic/Engineer)

[@johnusas2870]

But I'm 10th level 7 star private general CWO master prestige

[@neoanderson7763]

Yeah well with a kd ratio 2.96 qualifies me to be more of an expert than you. You probably don't even play fps. ANYWAY We should all be worried about China they have a huge army of players now and their small hands manipulate the controller quicker!

[@boxieracorn8445]

What if you play squad where all of the discussed tactics are viable.

[@DudeNumberOnePlus]

Situation dictates. Great footage btw.

[@michaelholloway8]

Leopard 2's very quiet. One of those and a LAV were being trailored into Toronto but had to dismount at Dundas and River Street. In my estimation the truck they rolled in on was louder than either of them.

[@VegarotFusion]

Depends on the type of battlefield and if you are assaulting or defending a position. Or advancing across unknown terrain or withdrawing to safety.

[@giovannibistolfi515]

15:10 aren't the smoke grenades supposed to conceal both from visible and IR light? Nice vid as always btw!

[@decimated550]

13:10 My God look at that nasty smoke coming back into the loader's face , that must be devastating for your health

[@ickekoep]

the better tactic provides the better attack. better tactics depends on reconaissance, expected enemy situation and actual enemy situation and much more. As you said, and many others, many variable run into deciding what to apply.

[@chessstudent8797]

I just suddenly saw this lmao also not subscribed but its a good content so I will sub now. Anyways, so you are telling that blitzkrieg is a bad tatic in modern warfare? Do a video about that tactic :)

[@DESIBOY-fe7nm]

Im getting addicted to this channel.

[@michaelhowell2326]

It was hilarious when we were training in the field and it was really cold, when we would start the tsnk, the infantrymen would come out and try to get warm from the jet exhaust and we would kill the engines. They would get so pissed. It was great.

[@Operator_sadness]

18:54 *Commander looking to the left and turned off his radio* driver: COMMANDER I CANT SEE! HELLO!?!?!?

[@carelianspitz]

Can you cover K9? Finland is buying those and I have seen one so that would be interesting. :) T(h)anks for awesome videos!

[@basslinedan2]

This is the first footage I've seen that clearly shows TOW guide wires.

[@mrx2062]

Depends on the terrain. In open country tanks, in difficult terrain where combat distances are short, like more urban terrain, infantry,

[@krispayne729]

You should do something on the A-10 Warthog I'm surprised you haven't done something on that plane yet

[@HazmatUnit]

Finally the answer the age-old question infantry or tank first

[@KC_Smooth]

Imo it depends on the situation. In an area with a lot of enemy infantry, send your infantry first. You cannot send tanks in first to encounter infantry RPG fire. That said, if enemy tanks are ahead, then you obviously send tanks in first.

[@bluefleet1655]

a balance of both, tanks to support the infantry and the infantry to protect the tanks from small more mobile targets. also did you do a vid on the xm2001 crusader

[@JJmazey]

This even works in video games use the tanks as a powerhouse to punch through fortifications and the infantry behind the tank to clear the area or provide protection against enemy infantry

[@TheSuperManulCat]

YEAH! Estonian defence forces from 10:54. You got my like, sir!

[@robinl.tinderfox6696]

I feel the best thing you should do, especially when you're dealing with urban environments is to do a mix of troops/tanks making up the spearhead of any assault. As was the case -- I believe -- in WWII when dealing with an urban environment, supporting tanks with infantry to check windows, alleyways, etc was imperative for their continued survival. Also, because of the flexibility of infantry, especially when you include an APC of some sort, you have more options to responding to changes in threats while still possessing heavy fire-power. Of course, this is just Infantry/Tanks and not including air support, etc.

[@Gummibaerchen234]

Can you do video, where you show what you can do as a infantarist(no at, just grenades, GL and bullets) against a tank? Maybe like destroying the cameras and how effective is this

[@crazychimp1324]

IFV straight up , "Death or Glory"

[@gullintanni]

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.

[@zergos921221]

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

[@user-kl3il9mw8i]

I would say it is a mater of how much you value the life of an infantry soldier and how easy it is to replace the system (tank, soldier). But there might be a third way. Tanks might be even more integrated and become a part of the mech infantry as it is hard to imagine a scenario divisions of tanks running on there own charging an enemy.

[@dimbulb5441]

Now that question is the million dollar question.

[@tahahormozan]

Imagine there be a new concept of tank which has armour plates open like wings from the sides for infantry take cover behind it or stand on the back edge and shoot via the fire holes

[@Mr12ob]

Also take a look at The Battle of Debecka Pass. Green Berets with Javelins took out tanks in a desert environment.

[@batteredskullsummit9854]

My short answer: it depends but usually infantry first, since in any assault it is key that you can maneuver as close as possible and strike with the element of surprise

[@hosedragger-204]

Recon vehicles and tanks should lead the way followed by IFVs and light infantry in wheeled vehicles with support from air and artillery, assisted by UAVs to show enemy locations (with friendlies having activated their IR strobes)

[@rashequddinahmed9511]

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.