Volkodav
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 28 March 2014
- Messages
- 656
- Reaction score
- 1,133
Foo Fighter said:It seems to be the opinion of some here that because tanks have been used in urban warfare before, they must be the best tool for the role. They very callously suggest that if a tank is killed while undertaking this role it is of no consequence. Are the lives of our troops so cheaply held without reguard that the lesson of the tank NOT being the best vehicle for infantry support in an urban environment is lost? It does not surprise me. Military lives are always cheap for armchair warriors.
You are missing the point that tanks save the lives of the troops they support in urban operations. While the tanks rely on dismounted infantry to protect them from ATGW teams etc. as well as to increase their situational awareness they also protect the dismounts from suppressing fire etc. and can easily take care of improvised, even prepared strong points, ambushes etc. Barricades made of overturned cars, burning tyres will slow or stop unsupported infantry, or even light armoured vehicles, but not tanks. The key as others have suggested (some of whom I know are ex army) is combined arms, this is why the TUSK includes an infantry telephone to assist in the supported infantry coordinating with the tanks. Also, as well as encouraging the other guys to keep their heads down, tanks draw fire and everything fired at them is not being fired at the accompanying infantry.