Go to curiositystream.thld.co/battleorder_0422 and use the code BATTLEORDER to save 25% off today, that's only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today's video!
"...for transporting company leadership in situations where a tank is not appropriate." Because driving an Abrams into the parking lot of the PX looks cool but is generally frowned upon.
A bn commander once thought it would be cool to bring his tac element of IFV's to a meeting, he looked like an idiot when he showed up and everyone else had just come in rental pickup trucks since, you know, the exercise hadn't even gone live yet.
Perhaps the most common problem with casual military enthusiasts is that their rote knowledge of individual pieces of military hardware lacks an operational understanding of how that hardware is actually used systemically within a military unit or force. Probably because that requires experience and critical thinking above and beyond simply Googling technical specifics of that item of hardware. These videos are excellent at alleviating that problem.
This is definitely not limited to modern military enthusiasts. It happens a lot with casual historians who study Ancient or Medieval warfare - they focus too much on potential equipment used and not logistical capability, organization, or general tactics which often played a far bigger role.
Served in 5th squadron, 4th cav regiment out in Fort Riley KS. D company was made up of Abrams while the rest of the unit consisted of Bradlys and 113 for mortar and medics. Our role as tankers was to support the Bradley's, and if they came into heavy contact, they would pull back and the tanks would engage the enemy.
@@DroneStrike1776 watched a bunch of videos of russian convoys being smoked they dont provide 360 security and instead of pushing through a ambush they all engage in a single direction leaving them vulnerable to a second group
@@colejones594 problem is they would just be driving into another ambush. And ukraine has modern guided AT weapons, this ain't like the taliban with rpg 7's.
@@DroneStrike1776 same goes to the Turks in Syria with the reliable Leopard 2s and they used it wrong, that's why they lost number of Leopard 2 at the front of the formation
@@ramal5708 Seams like they learned nothing from Israeli vs Arab Wars and Even WWII. Very similar to what happening in Ukraine now except the ambush units were always tanks as ranges in simi desert much longer most of the time. And people miss that Ukraine tanks are also racking up a large number of kills.
This really highlights the US Army’s superb logistics system. Especially when compared to most other countries and especially the one stuck in the mud in Ukraine right now
The US military is on a continent, isolated from the world by two vast oceans. In addition, it has allies all over the globe. Logistics are imperative to the the US military. Historically, the USA's most famous generals were so successful because of their understanding of logistics. From George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower to Norman Schwarzkopf
@@ethanmcfarland8240 No but even more so: historically escaped from bigger power, obsessed with freedom AND guns, located in one of the most resource rich lands in the world- on the other side of the pond of all major conflicts- surrounded by landmass and protected on each coast because a love for economics and global reach. We literally got the golden run for big guns + big funds. Thank god we are the "good" guy (democracy vs. autocracy)
As a Marine tanker it’s crazy to hear the number of units the Army has. Marines had 2 tank battalions which would never operate as full battalions due to MEU deployments and work ups.
"Had," is right. Burger just kicking ass and taking names. Nobody even slowing him down for two years. There may not even be a Marine Corps when he's done.
@@teller1290 Getting rid of the machine gun in part because the machine gunner is targeted more truly stupid. Of course the machine gunner is targeted more the machine gun does most of the work in fire fights. Thus that why you want to have them. I would agree the light machine gun per fire team was probably to many machine guns and one medium machine gun per squad the traditional set up is what should be use. This was SAW for the light machine gun and M-60 for medium machine gun when I was in.
@@teller1290 he won’t stop until the Marine Corp only does toys for tots and he will contract people to do that. He is doing what no country has ever been able to do, pretty saf
@@teller1290 actually all the previous commandants and a bunch of generals are lobbying Congress and have got there attention. Apparently him banning AAV ship/shore ops was a bridge too far
The concept of tank-infantry teams has been a concept that's been around since ww2, especially in relation to urban combat. It's integration has evolved over time. But there are foundational elements that are present whether you're talking about the battle of Grozny, Fallujah, Hue City, or Milan. The US Army had a publication on the subject that I believe is readily available "Breaking the Mold : Tanks in the cities" by the US army press. Check it out
In WW2 the Germans really advanced the role of the tank in war. American generals are well-versed on the role of tanks in a modern war. The Russian army is fighting like it's WW1 all over again. That was literally over 100 years ago. They're using 1985 weapons to fight a 1917 war. It's scary how ill-equipped for a modern war the Russians really are. The only lesson they learned from WW2 seems to be how to lose a mind-blowing amount of soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad. Even if you win, you lose.
I'm sure Chieftain has spoken about the perils of working with infantry previously on one of his Q&A's. Especially the issues of not being on the same comms as each other.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 He was Irish Army about 25 years ago. He moved to the USA and served several tours in Iraq*. He has commanded an Abrams and a Bradley. Current he is based in Texas. (maybe Afghanistan too, I'm not sure on that)
During the Afghanistan War, Tanks were not thought to be useful in an Insurgent environment and were not included into formations in Afghanistan and so the United States didn't bring any to fight insurgents. Canada on the other hand found that tanks provided added capabilities when dealing with insurgents. For one, they protected the dismounted infantry and provided additional firepower in enclosed spaces. Tanks were reinforced for combat to deal with insurgents with added armor to the bellies and sides to protect it from IEDs and anti tank missiles and bar armor on the rear of the tanks. These Tanks were known has Leopard 2A6M CAN variant and had infra equipped sites for the commander. These first 20 tanks were the Leopard 2 A6 tanks that were leased which had the L55 gun which Canada would later buy but the rest of the tanks that Canada upgraded to would be from the Netherlands armory and be equipped with the A4M package which had the shorter L44 barrel which Canada preferred to fight in Afghanistan which would carry the modular armor that the current gen Leopards have on the A7+ variant. Canada found that not only were tanks still very useful in an insurgent environment but properly supported by infantry that they could excel in operations in built up areas like towns and other urban areas. For instance, in Afghanistan the mud brick villages which had thick mud walls were notorious areas where the Taliban forced Coalition forces to dig them out. But they did it without tanks and without trying to flatten the villages with artillery. To get around this and reduce casualties, Canada created Breaching teams with 2 columns of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Each group would have 3 tanks, 1 at the head, 1 in the middle and 1 at the end of it. In between the Infantry fighting vehicles would be placed and engineering teams and infantry platoons to protect the tanks and the tanks would protect the infantry. In between the 2 columns the force would then focus on clearing the middle out and then spreading out to clear the rest of the mud village. To breach the mud walls, Canada specifically requested that each leopard be equipped with implements to carry plows and rollers so they can breach walls or roll over IEDs to set them off. The infra site that the Leopards carried were instrumental in detecting ambushes and allowing the commander to quickly fire heat rounds into buildings punching through to kill targets. Whenever infantry came under fire, they could quickly use the tank as protection and the tank commander would counter battery any fire from the Taliban. Normal doctrine for breaching is the tank commander would command the breach and then the infantry commander would command the clearing of the village. Tanks became so instrumental that they were used as artillery pieces in Afghanistan using a mountain top overlooking Kandahar, Leopards would be stationed there to support fire down the valley. With their direct fire, they were very accurate in calling down fire. Through the use of tanks, its safe to say that Canada did change perceptions on tanks in urban warfare. Denmark that replaced Canada when they pulled out of Afghanistan requested information on how Canada used tanks in Afghanistan and proceeded to use that knowledge by bringing their own Leopard 2's to the theater. The United States Marines for years requested tanks in Afghanistan finally got them when Canada pulled out. 20 Abrams were sent to Afghanistan to help support them. If tanks are supported properly with infantry and protected with the right technologies. Tanks can and will remain useful for modern warfare.
I had experience being supported by Canadian tanks on a mountain by Panjwai in Kandahar province. We requested a similar capacity in the form of basically a Bradley turret that could be airlifted to a mountain top but that request got denied. The one time I saw the tanks open up on a squad of TB that ended the fight real quick. They definitely add a psychological impact.
Youre forgetting that afghanistan and Iraq are two different animal with 2 different enemy types. we understand the concept of assisting the infantry....
This is indeed how it worked when I was in 1st armor division in 2008. We had the tank/infantry setup in Baghdad. Cool video that really made me remember stuff I forgot.
A time like no other… And then you get back home and nobody cares about the great things you did and your accomplishments don’t matter. On top of that, everyone else back home already started their lives and you are left behind when everyone else’s relationships grew :)
I was part of 5/77th and 1/32nd Armor Bn back in the early 90s. We trained with close air support from A-10s, mortar platoon in M113 in overwatch, scouts in forward positions identifying contacts and directing fire from mortar and/or Battalion of 155mm SP artillery. Brigade engineers assigned as needed to each Battalion and and a Battalion worth of maintenance, logistics, ammo, fuel, and medical ready to assist. We did split the Battalion 3 tank and 1 Bradley Mech Infantry companies evenly to form 4 equally balanced units under each of the 4 company commanders. Tank are at a huge disadvantage in an urban environment without combined arms infantry, engineers, mortar/artillery, and close air support.
@@chrisperrien7055 The 5/77th Steel Tigers Armor Bn was sent to Ft. Lewis, WA, in the early 90s and renamed 1/32nd Armor Bn shortly afterwards. I left the unit in 1995 and I don't know how it was before they were replaced with Stryker units.
As a tanker you never travel alone infantry if possible but at least in pairs they have what is called the leap frog where one tank watches the other tanks grill doors in the back and then moves forward while the other tank watches its grill doors the most vulnerable spot
Layered attack, layered defense. All with helicopters flying around and plinking enemy tanks before you get there. And ALWAYS with air supremacy. Clear the skies so the Army can do its thing. The Russians have not figured this out. It's not 1939. You can't just send in a column of tanks 40 miles long. Putin looked at the column and saw Russian strength. I saw the same column and saw a high-value target.
In the past, I did a bit of work as a government health specialist. And I was attached to a unit that was training at the National Training Center down in the Mojave. I've never worked with Armor units. But I encountered a unit with Stryker's. And interacting with them helped me understand just how critical support is. Especially trucks hauling fuel, and water. When water runs out. Or Fuel trucks can't keep up. Everything goes from a sprint to a crawl. And that's with wheeled vehicles. I can't even imagine the logistical struggle involved in keeping tracked vehicles moving.
By Russia's blunder in Ukraine you can see just how much better and organised US military logistics is in symetric warfare. From battle tactics, support, chain of command communication, orders and objectives, down to food and fuel. Everyone needs to do their part. It's not just rolling over a border with a bunch of tanks. There's sooo much more that goes into an effective battle unit.
@@GK-ne5uf You're right. Russian nonchalance, disregard of the opponent's strength cost them victory. In order to carry out a full-blown invasion, they should mobilize 2-3 times more than they actually did. Big chunk of that mobilized force would be all the logistical support which relies heavily on reservists.
The massacre in bucha should be wake up call for USA and nato. To go in and destroy Putin’s military in Ukraine before more civilians die. The occupied areas might have more civilian deaths waiting .
I always did wonder why our 1st Sergeant rolled around in a M113. Of course I was barely 19 years old and spent most of concentration not mowing down too many trees during combat training maneuvers.
I was stationed in Germany before the wall came down, while it came down and then shortly after. We were supposed to be a 'speed bump' for the Soviet onslaught through the Fulda gap. I was mechanized infantry in the 3id. Our unit trained as a combat team with tankers, ADA, combat engineers, artillery and cav scouts in the mix as well. It was very similar to the structure detailed here. After watching the Russian mechanized units in the Ukraine, I am now convinced we would have absolutely crushed them if they'd come through the Fulda gap. We were pretty tight and deadly.
You do know that the Soviet Union had way more military capacity than Russia has now, and that things like Nlaws where either non existent, still in development and in any case way less effective than today? Not to mention the complete lack of drones back than? I understand how you come to your conclusion but i can't say i agree, i left nato military 11 years ago and even in that time the technological advancements (especially manpads and drones) have gained both capability and capacity exponentially.
@@TheTryingDutchman - drones and nlaws don't explain the lack of fuel, incredibly stupid tactical movement, massive equipment abandonment, zero leadership and horrific attacks on civilians. It's like an SNL skit - Also consider this Russian army has not faced any air threat at all. If you add F-16, F-18, Warthogs and Cobras...notice I'm not adding the Apache, all from the 80's, and go head to head, we destroy them. The same BMP's employed, same small arms and years to refine their military tactics after Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. This is the 'modernized' Russian army. Take todays technology out and the USSR gets smoked in the late 80's, without a doubt. We were superior in all aspects. I can't get over how juvenile this operation is and just how horrible their armed forces actually are.
When you mentioned 1-67 the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I was an engineer with 2BEB in 3ABCT, a drone flown by someone in 1-67 caught me taking a shit in the middle of a fucking desert many moons ago. I kind of miss Fort Bliss actually, but I most certainly do not miss 3ABCT.
Super happy you used 1-67. When I was in the battalion was a part of 2nd BCT 4ID and at that time we were considered the premier CAB in the Army. To my knowledge it's the only unit that was stood down during restructure and brought right back. At that time the battalion was made up of Headquarters company Infantry companies x2 Armor companies x2 Combat Engineer company Forward support company. BFIST Bradley's would almost never be seen at a company level outside of HHC. Instead each line platoon had a Fister inherent to them who would ride in the Bradley with the infantry or stand in the Abrams doing their best to avoid the recoil of the gun as there wasn't really any room for them. Ad hoc weapons platoon could have been a possibility, however we had no weapons section like our brothers in the light infantry. All weapons were an inherent part of each squad.
“Each line platoon had a fister inherent to them” Just don’t tell the Brits. They declared fisting as illegal within their country. In case no one gets the humor, this is a joke about something completely unrelated to military topics.
As former support, I loved seeing Abrams moving/ manned checkpoints along MSR's. Because if you need heavy firepower when moving through a hot zone, those bad boys tend to level threats PDQ.
Lots of Australian footage! Love it! Please do an Australian defence force video on how the ADF plans on being the first “5th gen” military and how it will look like/shaping out to be
In 1st Cav the CAB battalions go one further and have two infantry companies and two armor companies along with scouts under HHC, becoming BCTs. Armor or infantry heavy battalions are starting to become a way of the past when talking about CABs. You'll see it in infantry divisions and armor divisions that would be a bit more mission specific but would have assets and support from other sources. There are a lot of variations in the military and it depends on mission, goal, terrain, the enemy forces, and several other factors. I've deployed under 1st Cav Div and then under 2-25ID SBCT. But had advantages and disadvantages to them but both were suited for the mission we were given and most challenges we faced. A lot of doctrine get thrown out the window during combat.
When I was in Iraq 2005, my company was an armored company that was reflaged motorized infantry with humvees. we were assigned to 2-69 3rd ID. They were an Armored battalion. They left halfway through our deployment, and when they left the gave us a bunch of their tanks. So we reorged and each platoon got 2 tanks and 2 squads of dismounts.
I was an infantry soldier in the 12 years of my 23 year career, with the Australian army. One of my favourite military exercise was training with armoured corps as well as the APCs ‘our bush taxi’, the Abrams was just rolling out prior to my leaving the infantry corps, but I loved the versatility they had as well as the lay out of their unit I.e 1 ARMD REGT
Your videos and website remain exceptional, please extend my thanks to you and the entire Battle Order team! Unrelatedly - and this might be a question you have heard before - but has anyone on the team heard of the Combat Mission games? It occurred to me that it would be interesting to see them (especially Shock Force 2, set in a fictitious intervention into Syria circa 2008) tackled from a doctrinal perspective rather than a game perspective Thank you again! Looking forward to the next video
@@BattleOrder 1000% understandable, it's a hell of a big game. I end up spending multiple sessions on a single scenario just to keep myself from getting impatient and getting sloppy with speed...
The problem with commie armor doctrines is you have what their doctrine is, and what they're actually doing. The gap between those two points is unreal right now.
To give more insight on the maintenance side of things. Each Platoon is assigned an individual MST or Maintenance Support Team. The composition is usually more fluid and at the end of the day the doctrine is at the commanders discretion. Usually wreckers are an individual operating squad. They may be attached to a company, but due to their criticality they need to be redundant. The FSC will erect a repair area where they will utilize the equipment to its maximum capability. This includes setting up a Maintenance Tent (which are freaking huge and will fly away) and dropping the maintenance connex. The PLS is not directly attached to the MST, as an FSC has a transportation platoon, they will coordinate with DISTRO (distribution) Platoon to have it dropped. the maintenance support team has the capability to do complete engine overhauls. There is a lot more that goes into this and i really liked the video. The interconnection of the military is astounding and each part needs to move for it all to work
Just for your info, with the way the MTOEs are for armor units, each FSC has a tailored MST to support each armor/inf company. The PLS/LHS is organic to each of these MSTs, for the purpose of transporting the M7 FRS. Wether the trucks stay with the teams or not and whether the teams stay with the company trains or with the field trains is based on unit SOP. Doctrinally though, the PLS/LHS belongs to the MST, and the MST remains in a DS role to the supported company while the rest of the FSC is GS to the individual companies.
I'm curious how Poland will integrate these tanks into their armed forces. They are procuring 250 tanks, which is huge for us. Central/eastern Europe's flat terrain looks ideal for these tanks.
Without boots on the ground, the tank becomes a roadblock. The tank always supports the infantry. Russia learned the hard way. I imagine they were trying Hitler's armoured blitzkrieg. But those days are gone. Control of Airspace is also just as important for an armored column to operate.
they tried the cheap version of blitzkrieg, hittler understood the importance of logistics (to a limit, his idea of having 20 diferent fucking tanks was stupid) and as such his blitzkrieg strategy involved opening a corridor and quickly filling it with logistics vehicles so that their troops could be feed, resuplied and rotated the russians yolo'd into ukraine got stuck in the mud and hunted like fucking sport with javelins
@@carso1500 to be fair Hitler didn’t have to do with things that could kill his tanks easily. If Poland had some javelins and at-4s the battle for Poland would have gone on for much longer.
@@joshuabonilla3491 history doesnt repeats itself bt it rhymes, this is arguable the winter war 2 electric boogalo with a littl bit of the ruso japanece wars and the invasion of Czechoslovakia mixed in for good measure but with some differences mainly finland was completly alone with dwingling resources the whole war while the soviet union was an industrial powerhouse with a 200 million population which is why they where able to absorb, replenish and recover their loses very quickly meanwhile russia here is a dying great power with limited industrial and technological capabilities going against a nation that is actively getting stronger by the day as they train their troops and get more and more military aid from the rest of the developed world
@@joshuabonilla3491 Tanks back then (and German early tanks were quite bad honestly) were also much weaker, blinder, slower and lacking in firepower, relatively speaking. Large caliber AT-rifles existed and most battalion infantry guns could make short work of an early Panzer IV or III.
10 years as an Armor crewman and I can say this is so accurate. I like how scouts weren’t even mentioned lol I know I know he didn’t go over a Calvary regiments organization but still little funny. It’s okay scouts I still love you.
8:37 If am armor CAB was to instruct a foreign military they would likely pick up a Security Force Assistance Team from one of the Army’s new Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFAB). Civil Affairs deal primarily with foreign civilians not Mil-Mil training and SOF units typical focus their Foreign Internal Defense (FID) missions on light infantry, SOF or other specialty tasks. SFA Advisor Teams are purpose built to train all aspects of the War Fighting Functions with Mil-Mil partners.
Hunter-killer teams are pretty legit in the ABCT world. I was lucky enough to take part in a CTC where DIV-CAV was once again tested out. I was in a heavy Cavalry Squadron with a Tank platoon attached to us alongside BFV engineers. As a dismount team leader though, we were unfortunately unable to put in a lot of work. Let alone some leaders in ABCT, don't like to use dismounts.
As always an amazing video about something that can be more complex and broken down in such a way that we can understand it better if it is not our own branch or military.
If all they have against drones is manpads that's not good at all. I hope they're quickly working toward something practical to protect against drones very, very soon.
Good break down. You pretty much covered the combined arms concept of an Armored Battalion. Only thing you left out is the dedicated drone squad for recon of the target. The ability of the Battalion Commander (BC) to gather and receive intelligence is leaps and bounds ahead of what it used to be. Namely relying on Division HQ to send down satellite intel which was slow and only useful for static enemy positions or to give an idea where mobile units where heading. That's all changed. Now individual tanks can receive this info in real time on their situational awareness monitors. A far cry from my days as a PL/TC with a map flying in the wind trying to figure out where the PLT was and where I was going and only reacting when we ran into resistance. Which is how the Russians and the Chinese are still doing it. I mean, they have the drones also, but the information distribution is still slow as hell, and basically useless by the time individual platoons get it. You know those video games where the tank you're fighting in has a little map to show you where you're at, and displays where the enemy is. That's pretty much the way it is now for US tanks. I haven't sat in a M1A2 for almost 30 years now so any TC's out there please correct me if I'm wrong.
I was in 85-90 and .... thankfully never had to spend time in NTC in CA. Did have to do a couple gunnery's and field ops in Hoenfelds GDR. So I never saw all the extra stuff that could be attached to a company level armor team. I do know that for all the years I was in. I never saw an armor platoon with 2 SSG's. It was always 1 LT, 1 SFC, 1SSG, and then usually 3 SGT's. I never advanced to the NCO rank .... just CPL before getting out. But it was cool seeing the break down of the Armored Company.
A timely video, since the Soviet inability to keep infantry with their tanks has people preaching the end of the tank. The Soviets have been doing this since they inherited their first tanks from their murdered czar. Not a lesson they seem to grasp.
The soviet are pioneers of maneuver and mechanized warfare with the first IFV's and APC's, what you say is just giberish, Americans too fails to give proper support to their AFV's, sometimes it fails, is not perfect.
Soviets were the pioneers of combined arms warfare and used combined arms very effectively in the later half of WW2, and it was heavily drilled during the Cold War too. Modern Russia runs their military on a shoestring budget and has suffered from a massive amount of brain drain so it's not fair to say this is how they've always done it.
"Pioneers" : yes. But they don't execute it well. First battle in Grozny : sending tank and APC in town without infantry around. Bloodbath. So time to bombard. They have a doctrine, but they don't follow it.
@@marcelosoaresdasilva2691 coming up with clever doctrine doesn’t make you a pioneer of the doctrine unless you can actually execute it. Russia has continuously failed to do so.
Very well presented. Your viewers should know that this is how it would work in a perfect world, where every unit is fully equipped and manned. Of course this is rarely the case. What usually happens is the support structure gets pulled higher (to Bn or Regt) where you only have, say two ambulances for three companies. In my time on active duty I never saw a team or task force with everything it was supposed to have.
The US army's logistics allowing the ability to create short lived platoons consisting of units from different battalions is an amazing concept that shows the US military's true strength of flexibility Edit: platoon, not company
A few years ago the army was working on the idea of a CAC, combined arms company, where 1st and 2nd plt are tankers and 3rd platoon are mech infantry in Bradleys. The idea didn't go anywhere from what I've seen, but we were originally going to go to NTC to test out the doctrine, but we didn't.
How a somewhat modest(?) tank company snowballs into a giant multitask company with attachments, based on necessity, is indeed very interesting to watch. Assets of lower echolon forces in US platoon or company might fare similar to most nations, but the level of support attainable from higher levels of the military really differentiates the Americans from other forces
That's one aspect as to what makes the US military so much more flexible than many other nations'. The ability to adapt and reorganize relatively fast gives us a great advantage when coming across unexpected terrain and enemy tactics/composition.
Just got out of NTC with the 1st Inf though I'm a new tanker, but i can confirm he hit's the nail on the head with composition of the company. (at 4:52) During my NTC rotation the CO and XO tanks where normally about 2KM behind the main fighting force which was the 2 tank platoons and the mech. infantry platoon. and then the 1SG was about 5KM behind them with everything else. the Fire Support Team was normally wherever best suited their role. the spacing between platoons varied most of the time about 2km and inside the platoon tanks where 500m apart. a tank company can and will cover massive areas and kill a lot of shit if left unchecked by the enemy. It was a lot of fun.
You were that far behind? I crewed the CO's tank, and we were always closer to the rest of the company. Was Franks Franks still there in the dust bowl?
Wilk is Wolf. Twardy is... tough, hard, stiff, adamant. Poland gave some.. about 200 tanks T-72 to Ukraine. Now Poland is waiting for British Chellenger 2. The problem with Leopard2 is that Poland have about 2000 tanks and wants to replace them with Leo2pl. But Germany have problems with producing the required number of tanks. So Poland needs US Abrams. Korean deal is painful for the wallet, but they offer a licence to produce modern Korean🇰🇷 Polish 🇵🇱 tank based on US 🇺🇸 Abrams XD.
years ago...in the dark ages...LOL...I was in a bradley BN in Germany. Being in D Co, we always cross organized with the armor BN next door. My platoon with another platoon was always in the company TF Mech while another platoon was always in company TF armor. This is how we fought in DS and even in 2003 in OIF. That said, there was never enough infantry for all the tasks on the mission board, so we always saw other mech infantry units task organized as well. The hardest piece of everything was that back then, although you had a habitual relationship, you were not part of the unit. This meant that every time we exercised, it was with people you really did not know. For DS, the armor BN we always trained with did not deploy so we linked up with a BN from an entirely different division just before the ground operations started. Having the various units permanently assigned together was a major step forward, but it means that the infantry unit is often the forgotten sister on the BN training schedule and is often viewed as a detail force so the tankers never have to do them. Don't get me started about what it was like to be in LRSD assigned to an MI unit....geez, what a nightmare.
You should really cover the recon assets that tanks cover as well. As there are tanks attached to cavalry units and used in a similar manner to cavalry.
you should look at the German system. the Panzergrenadier, it literally mean tank grenadier, or tank infantry. I am no expert, but was always told, that German tactic different from most other countries with the combined arms of tanks and infantry. basically the infantry is closer to the tanks, which is one reason why German tanks do not use ERA. it might be an interesting topic for someone more in depth knowledge of such matters
You should look into the organization and personnel of aviation brigades attached to most US divisions. Information about the number of personnel is not so easy to come by.
The Russians pushed recklessly through Ukraine and left single files of 3-4 tanks which outran their support and logistics and had to be abandoned. Another problem was the logistics - no fuel, no support teams and trafficjams all over as the one around Kiev, disrepair and system failures plus low morale for the troops. Third, no support from the other branches, especially underprepared and poor performence from VKS and possibly not enough PGMs even for iniatial strikes.
You are oversimplificating, if all this is not happening they will not have massive success in the operations they have, even more to the americans in Iraq and Afghanistan who they are literally not anymore.
@@marcelosoaresdasilva2691 operational success where though? They’re retreating from the northern front, and sending their forces east to secure any marginal gains
@@Bigman-fh1fz the pro russians bots are still trapped in the first days of the war when russia managed to get to kyiv in 2 days, then they run out of fuel, food and munition and started to get obliterated
Go to curiositystream.thld.co/battleorder_0422 and use the code BATTLEORDER to save 25% off today, that's only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today's video!
Also here's a cool video visualizing a combined arms breach with teams similar to how we described: ua-cam.com/video/ZZ-sCT_maAQ/v-deo.html
@@BattleOrder cool
You can you do something on the USMC infantry battalions 🙏
And footage of the Australian Army Abrams at the beginning: ua-cam.com/video/MZ-_oi7QhfE/v-deo.html
Think a vid on how Ukraine is using drones to even the playing field would be in order? Those Bayraktors are really doing some work
"...for transporting company leadership in situations where a tank is not appropriate." Because driving an Abrams into the parking lot of the PX looks cool but is generally frowned upon.
Especially if you hit a certain battalion commander car...
My XO took his platoon to the defac with his tank OCONUS, he is no longer our XO.
@@justicemaes3902 OOPS!
A bn commander once thought it would be cool to bring his tac element of IFV's to a meeting, he looked like an idiot when he showed up and everyone else had just come in rental pickup trucks since, you know, the exercise hadn't even gone live yet.
@@nilloc93 LOL. "Look! I'm Patton!"
Perhaps the most common problem with casual military enthusiasts is that their rote knowledge of individual pieces of military hardware lacks an operational understanding of how that hardware is actually used systemically within a military unit or force. Probably because that requires experience and critical thinking above and beyond simply Googling technical specifics of that item of hardware. These videos are excellent at alleviating that problem.
I used to be really interested in tank armor and their weapons but its much more interesting learning how they are actually used
This is definitely not limited to modern military enthusiasts. It happens a lot with casual historians who study Ancient or Medieval warfare - they focus too much on potential equipment used and not logistical capability, organization, or general tactics which often played a far bigger role.
Is reading book about military tactic operation and doctrine count?
And Russia apparently.
lol, over use of the English language to describe something so simple. over compensating... ?
Served in 5th squadron, 4th cav regiment out in Fort Riley KS. D company was made up of Abrams while the rest of the unit consisted of Bradlys and 113 for mortar and medics. Our role as tankers was to support the Bradley's, and if they came into heavy contact, they would pull back and the tanks would engage the enemy.
@@DroneStrike1776 they do and equally get fucked if not more
@@DroneStrike1776 watched a bunch of videos of russian convoys being smoked they dont provide 360 security and instead of pushing through a ambush they all engage in a single direction leaving them vulnerable to a second group
@@colejones594 problem is they would just be driving into another ambush. And ukraine has modern guided AT weapons, this ain't like the taliban with rpg 7's.
@@DroneStrike1776 same goes to the Turks in Syria with the reliable Leopard 2s and they used it wrong, that's why they lost number of Leopard 2 at the front of the formation
@@ramal5708 Seams like they learned nothing from Israeli vs Arab Wars and Even WWII. Very similar to what happening in Ukraine now except the ambush units were always tanks as ranges in simi desert much longer most of the time.
And people miss that Ukraine tanks are also racking up a large number of kills.
This really highlights the US Army’s superb logistics system. Especially when compared to most other countries and especially the one stuck in the mud in Ukraine right now
The US military is on a continent, isolated from the world by two vast oceans. In addition, it has allies all over the globe. Logistics are imperative to the the US military. Historically, the USA's most famous generals were so successful because of their understanding of logistics. From George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower to Norman Schwarzkopf
we really got one of the best spawns in this game
@@ItsJoKeZ
We’re surrounded by Canadians and Mexico. Unless Russia invades through Alaska, we’re gonna be just fine
@@ethanmcfarland8240 No but even more so: historically escaped from bigger power, obsessed with freedom AND guns, located in one of the most resource rich lands in the world- on the other side of the pond of all major conflicts- surrounded by landmass and protected on each coast because a love for economics and global reach.
We literally got the golden run for big guns + big funds. Thank god we are the "good" guy (democracy vs. autocracy)
Ukraine is losing btw
Not a video we expected but definitely a video we enjoyed. Amazing work as always Battle Order. Always a pleasure to look up to your channel.
Your channel isn’t to bad itself.
As a Marine tanker it’s crazy to hear the number of units the Army has. Marines had 2 tank battalions which would never operate as full battalions due to MEU deployments and work ups.
"Had," is right. Burger just kicking ass and taking names. Nobody even slowing him down for two years. There may not even be a Marine Corps when he's done.
@@teller1290 Getting rid of the machine gun in part because the machine gunner is targeted more truly stupid. Of course the machine gunner is targeted more the machine gun does most of the work in fire fights. Thus that why you want to have them.
I would agree the light machine gun per fire team was probably to many machine guns and one medium machine gun per squad the traditional set up is what should be use.
This was SAW for the light machine gun and M-60 for medium machine gun when I was in.
@@teller1290 he won’t stop until the Marine Corp only does toys for tots and he will contract people to do that. He is doing what no country has ever been able to do, pretty saf
@@christaylor6654 and nobody stops the mofo. Where tf are the retired generals and admiral's calling bullshit on this fraud?!
@@teller1290 actually all the previous commandants and a bunch of generals are lobbying Congress and have got there attention. Apparently him banning AAV ship/shore ops was a bridge too far
The concept of tank-infantry teams has been a concept that's been around since ww2, especially in relation to urban combat.
It's integration has evolved over time. But there are foundational elements that are present whether you're talking about the battle of Grozny, Fallujah, Hue City, or Milan.
The US Army had a publication on the subject that I believe is readily available
"Breaking the Mold : Tanks in the cities" by the US army press. Check it out
Its an amazing research, it explains a lot
Considering the army lost Fallujah twice I wouldn't trust their doctrine.
honestly pretty much all the lessons-learned from the IDF are applicable as well....
@@Baker-qr4pf We didn’t loose Fallujah, we gave it to a certain amount of Iraqi’s and they pretty much betrayed us soon after. Thanks CIA lol
In WW2 the Germans really advanced the role of the tank in war. American generals are well-versed on the role of tanks in a modern war.
The Russian army is fighting like it's WW1 all over again. That was literally over 100 years ago.
They're using 1985 weapons to fight a 1917 war. It's scary how ill-equipped for a modern war the Russians really are.
The only lesson they learned from WW2 seems to be how to lose a mind-blowing amount of soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad. Even if you win, you lose.
I'm sure Chieftain has spoken about the perils of working with infantry previously on one of his Q&A's. Especially the issues of not being on the same comms as each other.
"Crunchies"
I would argue that "working with infantry" has as a prerequisite, being on the same comms.
Otherwise they are just "co-located.
Wasnt he irish army? Do they even possess any tanks or did he serve elsewhere?
@@Ukraineaissance2014 Irish but then went Stateside I'm sure. Ireland currently have an armoured cavalry Corps but nothing heavier according to Wiki.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 He was Irish Army about 25 years ago. He moved to the USA and served several tours in Iraq*. He has commanded an Abrams and a Bradley.
Current he is based in Texas.
(maybe Afghanistan too, I'm not sure on that)
During the Afghanistan War, Tanks were not thought to be useful in an Insurgent environment and were not included into formations in Afghanistan and so the United States didn't bring any to fight insurgents. Canada on the other hand found that tanks provided added capabilities when dealing with insurgents.
For one, they protected the dismounted infantry and provided additional firepower in enclosed spaces. Tanks were reinforced for combat to deal with insurgents with added armor to the bellies and sides to protect it from IEDs and anti tank missiles and bar armor on the rear of the tanks. These Tanks were known has Leopard 2A6M CAN variant and had infra equipped sites for the commander. These first 20 tanks were the Leopard 2 A6 tanks that were leased which had the L55 gun which Canada would later buy but the rest of the tanks that Canada upgraded to would be from the Netherlands armory and be equipped with the A4M package which had the shorter L44 barrel which Canada preferred to fight in Afghanistan which would carry the modular armor that the current gen Leopards have on the A7+ variant.
Canada found that not only were tanks still very useful in an insurgent environment but properly supported by infantry that they could excel in operations in built up areas like towns and other urban areas. For instance, in Afghanistan the mud brick villages which had thick mud walls were notorious areas where the Taliban forced Coalition forces to dig them out. But they did it without tanks and without trying to flatten the villages with artillery. To get around this and reduce casualties, Canada created Breaching teams with 2 columns of tanks and infantry fighting vehicles. Each group would have 3 tanks, 1 at the head, 1 in the middle and 1 at the end of it. In between the Infantry fighting vehicles would be placed and engineering teams and infantry platoons to protect the tanks and the tanks would protect the infantry. In between the 2 columns the force would then focus on clearing the middle out and then spreading out to clear the rest of the mud village. To breach the mud walls, Canada specifically requested that each leopard be equipped with implements to carry plows and rollers so they can breach walls or roll over IEDs to set them off.
The infra site that the Leopards carried were instrumental in detecting ambushes and allowing the commander to quickly fire heat rounds into buildings punching through to kill targets. Whenever infantry came under fire, they could quickly use the tank as protection and the tank commander would counter battery any fire from the Taliban. Normal doctrine for breaching is the tank commander would command the breach and then the infantry commander would command the clearing of the village.
Tanks became so instrumental that they were used as artillery pieces in Afghanistan using a mountain top overlooking Kandahar, Leopards would be stationed there to support fire down the valley. With their direct fire, they were very accurate in calling down fire.
Through the use of tanks, its safe to say that Canada did change perceptions on tanks in urban warfare. Denmark that replaced Canada when they pulled out of Afghanistan requested information on how Canada used tanks in Afghanistan and proceeded to use that knowledge by bringing their own Leopard 2's to the theater. The United States Marines for years requested tanks in Afghanistan finally got them when Canada pulled out. 20 Abrams were sent to Afghanistan to help support them.
If tanks are supported properly with infantry and protected with the right technologies. Tanks can and will remain useful for modern warfare.
I had experience being supported by Canadian tanks on a mountain by Panjwai in Kandahar province. We requested a similar capacity in the form of basically a Bradley turret that could be airlifted to a mountain top but that request got denied. The one time I saw the tanks open up on a squad of TB that ended the fight real quick. They definitely add a psychological impact.
Youre forgetting that afghanistan and Iraq are two different animal with 2 different enemy types. we understand the concept of assisting the infantry....
@@CCM1199 : I'm not seeing where anyone else has mentioned Iraq?
I think Denmark sent some tanks too? Correct me if I'm wrong.
The US Marines brought a few tanks over as well.
I once imagined an abrams taking COH physics and being able to produce riflemen every 30 seconds
huh?
And stitching any missing limbs back to anyone close enough for reinforcement.
Mama and Papa Bradley do that today. Just give ‘em a quiet spot behind the motor pool to do their thing and 9 weeks later… Out pops a shiny new E-1.
@@c1ph3rpunk You have such a weird mind, you know that?
COH?
This is indeed how it worked when I was in 1st armor division in 2008. We had the tank/infantry setup in Baghdad. Cool video that really made me remember stuff I forgot.
Man, I miss the Army so bad. Being part of something bigger felt so good. Tank on, men.
Nostalgia goggles
In life we struggle to find a greater cause to be called to. I hope we find those opportunities brother.
A time like no other… And then you get back home and nobody cares about the great things you did and your accomplishments don’t matter. On top of that, everyone else back home already started their lives and you are left behind when everyone else’s relationships grew :)
Why did you leave?
@@percyfaith11 ISIS
I was part of 5/77th and 1/32nd Armor Bn back in the early 90s. We trained with close air support from A-10s, mortar platoon in M113 in overwatch, scouts in forward positions identifying contacts and directing fire from mortar and/or Battalion of 155mm SP artillery. Brigade engineers assigned as needed to each Battalion and and a Battalion worth of maintenance, logistics, ammo, fuel, and medical ready to assist. We did split the Battalion 3 tank and 1 Bradley Mech Infantry companies evenly to form 4 equally balanced units under each of the 4 company commanders.
Tank are at a huge disadvantage in an urban environment without combined arms infantry, engineers, mortar/artillery, and close air support.
5/77 still over in Mannheim back then?
@@chrisperrien7055 The 5/77th Steel Tigers Armor Bn was sent to Ft. Lewis, WA, in the early 90s and renamed 1/32nd Armor Bn shortly afterwards. I left the unit in 1995 and I don't know how it was before they were replaced with Stryker units.
As a tanker you never travel alone infantry if possible but at least in pairs they have what is called the leap frog where one tank watches the other tanks grill doors in the back and then moves forward while the other tank watches its grill doors the most vulnerable spot
Layered attack, layered defense. All with helicopters flying around and plinking enemy tanks before you get there.
And ALWAYS with air supremacy. Clear the skies so the Army can do its thing.
The Russians have not figured this out. It's not 1939. You can't just send in a column of tanks 40 miles long.
Putin looked at the column and saw Russian strength. I saw the same column and saw a high-value target.
In the past, I did a bit of work as a government health specialist. And I was attached to a unit that was training at the National Training Center down in the Mojave.
I've never worked with Armor units. But I encountered a unit with Stryker's. And interacting with them helped me understand just how critical support is. Especially trucks hauling fuel, and water.
When water runs out. Or Fuel trucks can't keep up. Everything goes from a sprint to a crawl. And that's with wheeled vehicles. I can't even imagine the logistical struggle involved in keeping tracked vehicles moving.
It's crazy how the M113 is still in service.
I came to say the same thing. Should be around a 60 years old design by now.
All are used in support roles, which is good
Tell that to the B-52 bomber. That thing is basically everyone's grandpa at this age
@@asherkosmos4312 Don't forget the DC-3 is still flying in a civilian role. One of them flying out of Yellowknife dropped paratroopers on D-Day.
@@asherkosmos4312 The U2 is also still in service. 66 years and counting.
By Russia's blunder in Ukraine you can see just how much better and organised US military logistics is in symetric warfare.
From battle tactics, support, chain of command communication, orders and objectives, down to food and fuel. Everyone needs to do their part.
It's not just rolling over a border with a bunch of tanks. There's sooo much more that goes into an effective battle unit.
True if Russians were preparing for symetric warfare...
@@norbi1411 It's not like Russia has enough money to field enough units with quality.
@@norbi1411 becuase "non-symmetric warfare" has clearly proven to work in Ukraine, got a ruskie flag flying in kyiv and all, right?
@@GK-ne5uf You're right. Russian nonchalance, disregard of the opponent's strength cost them victory. In order to carry out a full-blown invasion, they should mobilize 2-3 times more than they actually did. Big chunk of that mobilized force would be all the logistical support which relies heavily on reservists.
The massacre in bucha should be wake up call for USA and nato. To go in and destroy Putin’s military in Ukraine before more civilians die. The occupied areas might have more civilian deaths waiting .
always good when battle order uploads. Well done mate, how bout an episode about my home country of Singapore? it will be a rather interesting episode
I always did wonder why our 1st Sergeant rolled around in a M113. Of course I was barely 19 years old and spent most of concentration not mowing down too many trees during combat training maneuvers.
Could you go over the composition of NATO’s quick reaction force
👍👍
This pls
Makes me smile.. I was the senior medic for an armored company .. loved gunnery and field operations with that job
0:46 Proceds to show Destroyed Russian Tanks lol
Based but true.
I was stationed in Germany before the wall came down, while it came down and then shortly after. We were supposed to be a 'speed bump' for the Soviet onslaught through the Fulda gap. I was mechanized infantry in the 3id. Our unit trained as a combat team with tankers, ADA, combat engineers, artillery and cav scouts in the mix as well. It was very similar to the structure detailed here.
After watching the Russian mechanized units in the Ukraine, I am now convinced we would have absolutely crushed them if they'd come through the Fulda gap. We were pretty tight and deadly.
You do know that the Soviet Union had way more military capacity than Russia has now, and that things like Nlaws where either non existent, still in development and in any case way less effective than today?
Not to mention the complete lack of drones back than?
I understand how you come to your conclusion but i can't say i agree, i left nato military 11 years ago and even in that time the technological advancements (especially manpads and drones) have gained both capability and capacity exponentially.
Lol nice name
@@EricToTheScionti thank you haha, and thanks for subscribing!
@@TheTryingDutchman - drones and nlaws don't explain the lack of fuel, incredibly stupid tactical movement, massive equipment abandonment, zero leadership and horrific attacks on civilians. It's like an SNL skit -
Also consider this Russian army has not faced any air threat at all. If you add F-16, F-18, Warthogs and Cobras...notice I'm not adding the Apache, all from the 80's, and go head to head, we destroy them. The same BMP's employed, same small arms and years to refine their military tactics after Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine. This is the 'modernized' Russian army. Take todays technology out and the USSR gets smoked in the late 80's, without a doubt. We were superior in all aspects.
I can't get over how juvenile this operation is and just how horrible their armed forces actually are.
3rd ID, late '80s... You weren't in Kitzingen near Wurzburg by any chance?
When you mentioned 1-67 the hairs on the back of my neck stood up. I was an engineer with 2BEB in 3ABCT, a drone flown by someone in 1-67 caught me taking a shit in the middle of a fucking desert many moons ago. I kind of miss Fort Bliss actually, but I most certainly do not miss 3ABCT.
Super happy you used 1-67. When I was in the battalion was a part of 2nd BCT 4ID and at that time we were considered the premier CAB in the Army. To my knowledge it's the only unit that was stood down during restructure and brought right back.
At that time the battalion was made up of
Headquarters company
Infantry companies x2
Armor companies x2
Combat Engineer company
Forward support company.
BFIST Bradley's would almost never be seen at a company level outside of HHC. Instead each line platoon had a Fister inherent to them who would ride in the Bradley with the infantry or stand in the Abrams doing their best to avoid the recoil of the gun as there wasn't really any room for them.
Ad hoc weapons platoon could have been a possibility, however we had no weapons section like our brothers in the light infantry. All weapons were an inherent part of each squad.
“Each line platoon had a fister inherent to them”
Just don’t tell the Brits. They declared fisting as illegal within their country.
In case no one gets the humor, this is a joke about something completely unrelated to military topics.
@@Atourq first "ninja weapons" now this?
Adding illustrations is SO much clearer. Thanks for these vids.
As former support, I loved seeing Abrams moving/ manned checkpoints along MSR's.
Because if you need heavy firepower when moving through a hot zone, those bad boys tend to level threats PDQ.
Lots of Australian footage! Love it! Please do an Australian defence force video on how the ADF plans on being the first “5th gen” military and how it will look like/shaping out to be
Patience on that please. Our 3D printer is under maintenance before we print out the 5th Gen block.
Patience on that please. Our 3D printer is under maintenance before we print out the 5th Gen block.
Patience on that please. Our 3D printer is under maintenance before we print out the 5th Gen block.
Just found this channel it's very good quality.
Ikr
In 1st Cav the CAB battalions go one further and have two infantry companies and two armor companies along with scouts under HHC, becoming BCTs. Armor or infantry heavy battalions are starting to become a way of the past when talking about CABs. You'll see it in infantry divisions and armor divisions that would be a bit more mission specific but would have assets and support from other sources. There are a lot of variations in the military and it depends on mission, goal, terrain, the enemy forces, and several other factors. I've deployed under 1st Cav Div and then under 2-25ID SBCT. But had advantages and disadvantages to them but both were suited for the mission we were given and most challenges we faced. A lot of doctrine get thrown out the window during combat.
When I was in Iraq 2005, my company was an armored company that was reflaged motorized infantry with humvees. we were assigned to 2-69 3rd ID. They were an Armored battalion. They left halfway through our deployment, and when they left the gave us a bunch of their tanks. So we reorged and each platoon got 2 tanks and 2 squads of dismounts.
Loved the video and the way battle order explains it
This is exactly the type of thing I have no idea about but would love to learn more about. Difficult to learn about it as an outsider to the military.
Please do CABs next I beg you
I was an infantry soldier in the 12 years of my 23 year career, with the Australian army. One of my favourite military exercise was training with armoured corps as well as the APCs ‘our bush taxi’, the Abrams was just rolling out prior to my leaving the infantry corps, but I loved the versatility they had as well as the lay out of their unit I.e 1 ARMD REGT
I love your videos!!!! Keep up that good work, also that intro/logo, rlly cool. Keep up the good work my man!!
Your videos and website remain exceptional, please extend my thanks to you and the entire Battle Order team!
Unrelatedly - and this might be a question you have heard before - but has anyone on the team heard of the Combat Mission games? It occurred to me that it would be interesting to see them (especially Shock Force 2, set in a fictitious intervention into Syria circa 2008) tackled from a doctrinal perspective rather than a game perspective
Thank you again! Looking forward to the next video
I have Shock Force 2 and played it a little but I don't really have the attention span for it lol
@@BattleOrder 1000% understandable, it's a hell of a big game. I end up spending multiple sessions on a single scenario just to keep myself from getting impatient and getting sloppy with speed...
I worked with OPFOR at NTC Irwin as a tanker. The differences between western and commie armor doctrines would make a cool video.
Nicely done ✅
The problem with commie armor doctrines is you have what their doctrine is, and what they're actually doing. The gap between those two points is unreal right now.
You make really clear and informative videos.
To give more insight on the maintenance side of things. Each Platoon is assigned an individual MST or Maintenance Support Team. The composition is usually more fluid and at the end of the day the doctrine is at the commanders discretion. Usually wreckers are an individual operating squad. They may be attached to a company, but due to their criticality they need to be redundant. The FSC will erect a repair area where they will utilize the equipment to its maximum capability. This includes setting up a Maintenance Tent (which are freaking huge and will fly away) and dropping the maintenance connex. The PLS is not directly attached to the MST, as an FSC has a transportation platoon, they will coordinate with DISTRO (distribution) Platoon to have it dropped. the maintenance support team has the capability to do complete engine overhauls. There is a lot more that goes into this and i really liked the video. The interconnection of the military is astounding and each part needs to move for it all to work
Just for your info, with the way the MTOEs are for armor units, each FSC has a tailored MST to support each armor/inf company. The PLS/LHS is organic to each of these MSTs, for the purpose of transporting the M7 FRS. Wether the trucks stay with the teams or not and whether the teams stay with the company trains or with the field trains is based on unit SOP. Doctrinally though, the PLS/LHS belongs to the MST, and the MST remains in a DS role to the supported company while the rest of the FSC is GS to the individual companies.
I'm curious how Poland will integrate these tanks into their armed forces. They are procuring 250 tanks, which is huge for us. Central/eastern Europe's flat terrain looks ideal for these tanks.
They were indeed designed for Europe.
Without boots on the ground, the tank becomes a roadblock. The tank always supports the infantry. Russia learned the hard way. I imagine they were trying Hitler's armoured blitzkrieg. But those days are gone. Control of Airspace is also just as important for an armored column to operate.
they tried the cheap version of blitzkrieg, hittler understood the importance of logistics (to a limit, his idea of having 20 diferent fucking tanks was stupid) and as such his blitzkrieg strategy involved opening a corridor and quickly filling it with logistics vehicles so that their troops could be feed, resuplied and rotated
the russians yolo'd into ukraine got stuck in the mud and hunted like fucking sport with javelins
@@carso1500 to be fair Hitler didn’t have to do with things that could kill his tanks easily. If Poland had some javelins and at-4s the battle for Poland would have gone on for much longer.
@@joshuabonilla3491 history doesnt repeats itself bt it rhymes, this is arguable the winter war 2 electric boogalo with a littl bit of the ruso japanece wars and the invasion of Czechoslovakia mixed in for good measure but with some differences mainly
finland was completly alone with dwingling resources the whole war while the soviet union was an industrial powerhouse with a 200 million population which is why they where able to absorb, replenish and recover their loses very quickly
meanwhile russia here is a dying great power with limited industrial and technological capabilities going against a nation that is actively getting stronger by the day as they train their troops and get more and more military aid from the rest of the developed world
@@joshuabonilla3491 Tanks back then (and German early tanks were quite bad honestly) were also much weaker, blinder, slower and lacking in firepower, relatively speaking. Large caliber AT-rifles existed and most battalion infantry guns could make short work of an early Panzer IV or III.
10 years as an Armor crewman and I can say this is so accurate. I like how scouts weren’t even mentioned lol I know I know he didn’t go over a Calvary regiments organization but still little funny. It’s okay scouts I still love you.
We love our crewman back
Loved the ADF footage in this video!
Here's the full: ua-cam.com/video/MZ-_oi7QhfE/v-deo.html
8:37 If am armor CAB was to instruct a foreign military they would likely pick up a Security Force Assistance Team from one of the Army’s new Security Force Assistance Brigades (SFAB). Civil Affairs deal primarily with foreign civilians not Mil-Mil training and SOF units typical focus their Foreign Internal Defense (FID) missions on light infantry, SOF or other specialty tasks. SFA Advisor Teams are purpose built to train all aspects of the War Fighting Functions with Mil-Mil partners.
Hunter-killer teams are pretty legit in the ABCT world. I was lucky enough to take part in a CTC where DIV-CAV was once again tested out. I was in a heavy Cavalry Squadron with a Tank platoon attached to us alongside BFV engineers. As a dismount team leader though, we were unfortunately unable to put in a lot of work. Let alone some leaders in ABCT, don't like to use dismounts.
As always an amazing video about something that can be more complex and broken down in such a way that we can understand it better if it is not our own branch or military.
Excellent oversight, and very detailed at the same time. This learns me so much, keep them coming and thank you!
You create incredible videos bro
If all they have against drones is manpads that's not good at all. I hope they're quickly working toward something practical to protect against drones very, very soon.
Very interesting stuff I like the details.
Good break down. You pretty much covered the combined arms concept of an Armored Battalion. Only thing you left out is the dedicated drone squad for recon of the target. The ability of the Battalion Commander (BC) to gather and receive intelligence is leaps and bounds ahead of what it used to be. Namely relying on Division HQ to send down satellite intel which was slow and only useful for static enemy positions or to give an idea where mobile units where heading. That's all changed. Now individual tanks can receive this info in real time on their situational awareness monitors. A far cry from my days as a PL/TC with a map flying in the wind trying to figure out where the PLT was and where I was going and only reacting when we ran into resistance. Which is how the Russians and the Chinese are still doing it. I mean, they have the drones also, but the information distribution is still slow as hell, and basically useless by the time individual platoons get it. You know those video games where the tank you're fighting in has a little map to show you where you're at, and displays where the enemy is. That's pretty much the way it is now for US tanks. I haven't sat in a M1A2 for almost 30 years now so any TC's out there please correct me if I'm wrong.
Russian Analysts watching the video: Write that down! Write that down!
Nyet comrade, logistics is fine. Is all part of plan
Excellent as always
Would you ever consider making a video on the us navy how deployments work and zones of control for each fleet
Wish for videos about Private Military Contractors soon.
Subbed and rang the bell. The editing is nice and the artwork youre using is excellent. The visualization helps a lot
The solider in the thumbnail with the SAW jumping from the Abrams…..I see a VA medical claim denial in his future.
love the Aussie footage
A video about combat engineers or pioneers would be very interesting.
awesome video. Im a tanker in an abct and i understood alot of it and made me realize how the company im in plays in the bigger part
I totally forgot about your channel. I followed you on Instagram ages ago loved seeing how each platoon was made up.
I was in 85-90 and .... thankfully never had to spend time in NTC in CA. Did have to do a couple gunnery's and field ops in Hoenfelds GDR. So I never saw all the extra stuff that could be attached to a company level armor team. I do know that for all the years I was in. I never saw an armor platoon with 2 SSG's. It was always 1 LT, 1 SFC, 1SSG, and then usually 3 SGT's. I never advanced to the NCO rank .... just CPL before getting out. But it was cool seeing the break down of the Armored Company.
So you're saying driving tanks into muddy fields, unsupported by infantry, in hostile territory is a bad thing?
Id hate to go against the Abram with its mine plow attached. Thing just looks mean! What a beast tank.
I use this video for organizing my forces for Team Yankee, very informative
Very well done! Good job.
A timely video, since the Soviet inability to keep infantry with their tanks has people preaching the end of the tank. The Soviets have been doing this since they inherited their first tanks from their murdered czar. Not a lesson they seem to grasp.
The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. If your claim is that Russia is the successor to the Soviet Union, then prove that Russia is still Communist.
The soviet are pioneers of maneuver and mechanized warfare with the first IFV's and APC's, what you say is just giberish, Americans too fails to give proper support to their AFV's, sometimes it fails, is not perfect.
Soviets were the pioneers of combined arms warfare and used combined arms very effectively in the later half of WW2, and it was heavily drilled during the Cold War too. Modern Russia runs their military on a shoestring budget and has suffered from a massive amount of brain drain so it's not fair to say this is how they've always done it.
"Pioneers" : yes. But they don't execute it well. First battle in Grozny : sending tank and APC in town without infantry around. Bloodbath. So time to bombard.
They have a doctrine, but they don't follow it.
@@marcelosoaresdasilva2691 coming up with clever doctrine doesn’t make you a pioneer of the doctrine unless you can actually execute it. Russia has continuously failed to do so.
Can you please make a video on a Marine Expeditionary Unit?
This just blew my mind
Very well done analysis.
Very well presented. Your viewers should know that this is how it would work in a perfect world, where every unit is fully equipped and manned. Of course this is rarely the case. What usually happens is the support structure gets pulled higher (to Bn or Regt) where you only have, say two ambulances for three companies. In my time on active duty I never saw a team or task force with everything it was supposed to have.
Great video as always. Thanks for this. Very digestible
Excellent breakdown of the Armored Company.
The US army's logistics allowing the ability to create short lived platoons consisting of units from different battalions is an amazing concept that shows the US military's true strength of flexibility
Edit: platoon, not company
3:36 that somes up my 19k tanking experience while at fort bliss. Throwing track in that God awful chia pet infested desert.
Support your tank units in various ways.
Russia: "No"
Great breakdown and thx for the info. Great video!!!
Excellent.
Thank you.
A few years ago the army was working on the idea of a CAC, combined arms company, where 1st and 2nd plt are tankers and 3rd platoon are mech infantry in Bradleys. The idea didn't go anywhere from what I've seen, but we were originally going to go to NTC to test out the doctrine, but we didn't.
How a somewhat modest(?) tank company snowballs into a giant multitask company with attachments, based on necessity, is indeed very interesting to watch.
Assets of lower echolon forces in US platoon or company might fare similar to most nations, but the level of support attainable from higher levels of the military really differentiates the Americans from other forces
That's one aspect as to what makes the US military so much more flexible than many other nations'. The ability to adapt and reorganize relatively fast gives us a great advantage when coming across unexpected terrain and enemy tactics/composition.
Just got out of NTC with the 1st Inf though I'm a new tanker, but i can confirm he hit's the nail on the head with composition of the company. (at 4:52) During my NTC rotation the CO and XO tanks where normally about 2KM behind the main fighting force which was the 2 tank platoons and the mech. infantry platoon. and then the 1SG was about 5KM behind them with everything else. the Fire Support Team was normally wherever best suited their role. the spacing between platoons varied most of the time about 2km and inside the platoon tanks where 500m apart. a tank company can and will cover massive areas and kill a lot of shit if left unchecked by the enemy. It was a lot of fun.
You were that far behind? I crewed the CO's tank, and we were always closer to the rest of the company. Was Franks Franks still there in the dust bowl?
@@traviseggl3794 the thing is my co wanted to keep coms with everyone so he sat a bit back to make sure him and first sgt had coms with eachother
Excellent video as always
im an officer cadet and sometimes these videos summarize what we had in class very well. great job
Thanks!
Wilk is Wolf. Twardy is... tough, hard, stiff, adamant. Poland gave some.. about 200 tanks T-72 to Ukraine. Now Poland is waiting for British Chellenger 2. The problem with Leopard2 is that Poland have about 2000 tanks and wants to replace them with Leo2pl. But Germany have problems with producing the required number of tanks. So Poland needs US Abrams. Korean deal is painful for the wallet, but they offer a licence to produce modern Korean🇰🇷 Polish 🇵🇱 tank based on US 🇺🇸 Abrams XD.
Most tank platoons also have missle defense systems to protect from anti tank missles.
years ago...in the dark ages...LOL...I was in a bradley BN in Germany. Being in D Co, we always cross organized with the armor BN next door. My platoon with another platoon was always in the company TF Mech while another platoon was always in company TF armor. This is how we fought in DS and even in 2003 in OIF. That said, there was never enough infantry for all the tasks on the mission board, so we always saw other mech infantry units task organized as well.
The hardest piece of everything was that back then, although you had a habitual relationship, you were not part of the unit. This meant that every time we exercised, it was with people you really did not know. For DS, the armor BN we always trained with did not deploy so we linked up with a BN from an entirely different division just before the ground operations started.
Having the various units permanently assigned together was a major step forward, but it means that the infantry unit is often the forgotten sister on the BN training schedule and is often viewed as a detail force so the tankers never have to do them.
Don't get me started about what it was like to be in LRSD assigned to an MI unit....geez, what a nightmare.
I love stumbling upon new channels!
You should really cover the recon assets that tanks cover as well. As there are tanks attached to cavalry units and used in a similar manner to cavalry.
We have
I can see the kremlin frantically taking notes from this video lol :P
Very well presented.
you should look at the German system. the Panzergrenadier, it literally mean tank grenadier, or tank infantry. I am no expert, but was always told, that German tactic different from most other countries with the combined arms of tanks and infantry. basically the infantry is closer to the tanks, which is one reason why German tanks do not use ERA. it might be an interesting topic for someone more in depth knowledge of such matters
Excellent and Outstanding!!!
Great video pal
You should look into the organization and personnel of aviation brigades attached to most US divisions. Information about the number of personnel is not so easy to come by.
As a general and a chief of sofa-based forces, I would be excited to see Abrams tanks in my region.
The thumbnail is a picture of me and my squad in 2003 prepping for OIF1. I have more pictures of that exercise as well. Crazy lol
That's sick
The Russians pushed recklessly through Ukraine and left single files of 3-4 tanks which outran their support and logistics and had to be abandoned. Another problem was the logistics - no fuel, no support teams and trafficjams all over as the one around Kiev, disrepair and system failures plus low morale for the troops. Third, no support from the other branches, especially underprepared and poor performence from VKS and possibly not enough PGMs even for iniatial strikes.
You are oversimplificating, if all this is not happening they will not have massive success in the operations they have, even more to the americans in Iraq and Afghanistan who they are literally not anymore.
@@marcelosoaresdasilva2691 operational success where though? They’re retreating from the northern front, and sending their forces east to secure any marginal gains
@@Bigman-fh1fz the pro russians bots are still trapped in the first days of the war when russia managed to get to kyiv in 2 days, then they run out of fuel, food and munition and started to get obliterated