Infantry or Tanks - Which Should Lead An Attack? 

Their front armour is thickest at the front - Matsimus 2017

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

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

Anime girls with ancient Japanese warships spirit

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.

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

In an urban enviroment , infanrty first in my opinon

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

An officer with a whistle and sword should obviously lead.

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.

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. :)

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

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

Good content in the video Matsimus. Liked and subbed.

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.

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.

In short both tanks and Infantry compliment each other.

Great video thanks for making this type of video.

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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 👍😄

salute and love the channel.

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)

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.

Good work

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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)

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.

@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.

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.

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.

Im getting addicted to this channel.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

I felt like this could have been a really good video

IFV straight up , "Death or Glory"

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Now that question is the million dollar question.

Good point sir!

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

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

Situation dictates. Great footage btw.

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.

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.

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 :)

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.

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!

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

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

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

8:36 Casually jamming the smoke launcher with a beer bottle x'D

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.

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.

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

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

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.

i was a USMC rifleman 05-09. I think the situation always dictates who leads. in open areas, usually the armor is nice to have out in the front, but in a forest or urban environment, the infantry can fend for them selves better and "scout" a head and screen.

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

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.

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.

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

I know this is complicated but with the merkava you can have tanks and infantry together.

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

It's a fascinating question. I have a question: What are the roles of APCs compared to IFVs? Would it be better that instead of IFVs we had APCs with the same armour and active/passive protection and mobility as the MBTs they accompany but they carry more troops per vehicle compared to IFVs. Also is it sensible for a passenger laden IFV to pretend it's a light tank? If it gets taken out it's likely that the troops it's carrying are going to be killed/maimed too.

Without a defensive revolution is the cost and R&D of replacing modern tanks worth it. I do not know the current life span of most tank models but is it better to just have IFVs and infantry if AT technology is so powerful and cheap?

Personally i think it should always be a mix of tanks and mobile infantry. Quick units that can deploy quickly. Greatly also gives more options to command and control to use.

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

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