11:45 "after the gap crossing, the roller-tank, if still operational..." the simulation looks very clean but they know it's a very bloody kind of operation
If you think that this plan seems to be too complex and relies on so many things to go right to pull off, that you overwhelm in enemy in numbers, you are probably correct. However, your conclusion that this plan is useless, is wrong. And here is why: A combined arms breach against a combined arms defense is the most difficult task in modern warfare bar none, with the exception of either an opposed amphibious landing or a river crossing. That is why you need a War College, a General Staff, a well-trained officer corp, NCO corp and soldiers who practice the theory and craft for years in the event they need to do one of these things. That is how to can get EVERYTHING to work right for you when you need it to. Is it a suicide mission? Yes, but war is dangerous. Yet nothing short of a total commitment of every single arms in your inventory can make it work. You can't just bomb or shell the enemy to dust. They tried to shell Somme for 10 days in 1918 and the moment the infantry got out of the trench and advance, a few machine guns mowed them down. The enemy is not stupid. They are not gonna sit around for you to bomb them. If you don't put infantry and tanks upfront threatening to break through, they are going to hide, dug in, or keep their reserves out of the way. The 1991 Gulf war was an anomaly because the Iraqis cooperated in their own destruction. In 1999, NATO learned that since they did not put boots on the ground, the enemy simply hide and create decoys to be bombed. Same thing will happen here: the rule is to put a small screening force to detect a potential threat. If they try to bomb you without ground forces to advance, simply abandon your position. If they indeed advance without indirect fire support, rush back into position and shoot them. In short, if the enemy is competent and can employ the whole spectrum of arms to oppose you, the only possible response should be: use your own full spectrum of arms, then add numerical superiority. The old rule of 3-to-1 attacker vs defender still works. If both sides have all the arms and use them competently, the bigger side wins; at least locally and tactically. Then you need some operational genius to turn a penetration to a exploitation attack and surround the enemy, then cut him off. No single weapon or solution will ever work against a competent enemy. They tried, but it never worked. Not artillery, not tanks, not aircraft, not napalm, not precision-guided munitions. Nothing. Short a nuclear weapon.
Thank you! The number of people I've encountered that say with a straight face "we have drones and stealth planes, we dont need anything else" is depressing. Not to mention a bit reminiscent of when the guided missile (see Phantom II for details), came about
Indeed. And during the whole process ENY must be suppressed otherwise they will take out breaching elements. Even that way they will try to take them out first.
"..the only possible response should be: use your own full spectrum of arms, then add numerical superiority. " Absolutely not. This WW1 logic. Will probably give you WW1 results.
This is what the Ukrainians are executing right now during the counteroffensive. Except for the fact that they're not having air support. It's gonna be insanely difficult.
The tactic itself works if only light vehicles are countered. I just looked at photos of another broken column. At the beginning, the destroyed trawls, and behind the column of equipment that moved behind them. They will not leave the minefield anywhere.
Amazing work! I have to echo BN880 - these are the best videos of VBS and of tactical tutorial videos around. The production values are so high. Thank you!
We did the same training at NTC back in 99. Our Combat Engineer Platoon was part of the breaching Team. Only this time we have the Apaches for air support. 65th and 84th Engineers SAPPERS!
The breaching points themselves are such small and vulnerable targets. As long as the enemy has some air assets or indirect fire capabilities nobody is going to get through there.
dropping bombs on the breach point is basically a suicide mission. If they want to trying to meet our suicide mission with certain suicide....then I accept the terms.
Tactically, with equal forces, or near equal, this is impossible. You succeed at the very difficult at the tactical level because at the operational level, the offensive/attack has been planned so that forces are disproportionate. You are able to effectively suppress the enemy, you are able to threaten their artillery every time they fire, and you have enough battalions to get to the X. Operationally you've concealed the identity of the main effort, and the timing. Strategically, which points on the front get an offensive operation are concealed or are confused through use of false attacks, fake unit buildups (inflatables), false orders landing in enemy hands, and degraded enemy strategic recon. If this doesn't happen at the operational and strategic levels then your attack should fail. The engineers die (Engineers are expendable). You get more engineers, and then get better at the operational and strategic level. Try again. Engineers die. Repeat.
Warfare is not a closed board game where you need to follow a specific role. You aren't required to hit the strongest point of enemy defense. You hit them where it's weak or when they're unable to hold the line because a diversion was created somewhere. This video was meant to be used after bypassing that method not a diy to make a breakthrough against the strongest enemy defense.
For people saying if the enemy has that or defend with that then this will be a suicide or a failure, well, the point of breaching is not to hit the strongest enemy defense but create a string of diversion on the frontline, make probe attacks and do a breakthrough where the lines are weak or when the enemies makes a mistake.
This is insanity. It requires so much to go right to work. Those engineer units are practically on a suicide run. Clearing mines, under fire from entrenched opfor with AT weapons. Not only that, there are high valued assets up front in order for this to happen. Against a modern fighting force, I can't see this going well. Even against an entrenched force that's stuck in the 80's, I can see this being incredibly difficult at best. Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong. Personally, I would have taken a few notes from the official Somme strategy guide and shelled that position for a few days straight before my attack.
+thespartanmk1 That's why officer training is very important. These people spend years theorizing and practicing their craft. Of course they NEED to be able to do this, otherwise you lose a war. First, day long shelling is a tactics that is obsolete in 1918. It just do not work. Why? because the principle remedy is to only station a light screening force of machineguns in the front trenches to absorb the fire. As soon as the shelling stops, the reserves are thrown in and you are going to walk into a killzone. Shelling reserve forces are very difficult: you don't have good intelligence, they are usually well dug-in. Also, even for the troops in the front trenches, they can still be saved; by a prepared fall back communication trench, or actually jumping out of the trench and take cover in the shell holes in front of the trench. The bombardment is typically lighter there. you should note that the defender is only a BMP battalion with an attached tank platoon. To overcome this defense, the attacker use an entire armored brigade with 2 tank battalions, and 2 armored infantry battalions, plus other (non-divisional) assets. This is a rather tank heavy unit for a penetration attack. In WWII, Eastern Front, Red Army, a penetration attack is typically done with an infantry heavy formation reinforced with tanks. An infantry division with a tank battalion attached. Believe it or not; this is the type of tactics already developed in WWII. Typically, to achieve a break through, you might want to concentrate your force so that you outnumber the enemy 3 or 5 to 1. A brigade vs a battalion. Then you hit them with a concentrated barrage of divisional and non-divisional artillery, close air support and then advance as close as possible with the bombardment and kill the enemy. Since you have overwhelming number; just by numbers alone you will break through. You can't just stand at some distance and dropping shells and bombs. The enemy aren't stupid. They are not gonna sit there with their thumbs up their ass waiting to be bombed. They wil hide, they will dig in, they will keep reserves.. If you are not presenting them any ground force that threaten a break through, they will just dig in and never show; so you can't target them. You need ground forces: tanks and infantry to present a target, pin and spot the enemy, force him to shoot back in order to give your air force and artillery a target.
Indirect fire capabilities have come quite a long way, and if the breaching forces did have squadrons of Apaches, F-16s, MLRS, and 155 mm cluster artillery concentrated I think they should be able to do it, especially since they specifically state to concentrate against only 2 platoons. Of course, the more modern the opposing army the more likely that their own firing assets and air support will come into play. I would hope that this is just treated as the "ideal" situation, with a lot of exercises running through scenarios where something goes wrong.
You under estimate the power of all those COAX.. They fire until they see something and whatever they see while shooting like that is pretty dumb to peek in view of it.
Im pretty sure when we did this during a brigade calfex, there was smoke everywhere, sand blowing everywhere, when it was our tanks turn to cross over the berm and follow the flags with the cleared lane, im pretty sure I drove to far left , ran over the flags, and drove into the simulated minefield bu about 10 meters, before the commander corrected me to get back into the lane. It was hard to see, i should have used my dve( the thermal screen with the camera so the driver can see at night
Based on what criteria will the breach force ABV and mine-roller know when the minefield has ended at the far side? Wil that be determined by recon capabilities used before the operation? What recon capabilities would be suitable for that? Small recon teams doing covert breaches on foot at night in sections of the obstacle to avoid detection with mine-detection equipment and just figuring it out?
It's always useful to understand what the general plan should be regardless. However, the idea that what's shown is anything other than a suicide mission when going up against a similar scale conventional army is...frightening.
hopefully, the attackers greatly outnumber the defenders in the event of something like this. no way any good commander would voluntarily go toe to toe with a near peer force thats equal in size _and_ dug in, and expect anything other than defeat.
I have a question. Why don't the airstrikes and artillery take out every enemy asset that could pose a potential threat to the breach operation? Is it a financial question (guided bombs being more expensive)? If so, is the cost in dollars spent on jet fuel and bombs really higher than the potential loss of expensive equipment (tanks, choppers, etc.) and trained personell (strictly financially speaking - the loss of life is always to be avoided)? I have no education in military strategy or tactics so in my simple mind the most effective approach would be to conduct airstrikes until all enemy air defenses are destroyed, then move in with attack helicopters and/or conduct artillery strikes from safe positions in order to take out all tanks and artillery, or just have a B-52 carpet bomb across the entire enemy position - and not before all enemy defense capabilities are made inoperable does the friendly force move in to conduct the breach. This approach would require significantly less friendly ground assets to protect the breach operation and considerably reduce the risk of loss of life and equipment, as the breach team would be able to conduct the breach in peace and quiet. But surely I am missing something, otherwise this would be standard operating procedure. I would very much appreciate if someone could educate me on the tactical/strategical reasoning behind this. Thank you!
Well, this will work if: - the enemy mass his force in the first echelon in poorly camouflaged positions - and you have perfect intelligence on where his positions are, both first line and reserves - the enemy don't attempt to keep reserves conduct good camouflage. Against a competent enemy, your reconnaissance by air will turn up empty, or worse, detecting dummy sacrificial positions. Then what next? you will dump all those long ranger artillery, B-52, and whatnot against essentially empty positions. When your actual tanks and attack forces roll up, the enemy open fire from their concealed actual firing positions and now you are fucked. They can array in both width and depth so most of your munitions will hit essentially nothing. So what's the solution? exactly as this video stated. Get as much intel as you can on your mission. Use all assets and attempt to concentrate and overwhelm an enemy at the breaching point. Maintain continuous fire with all weapon systems at all ranges to suppress the enemy. Drop smoke to obscure them. keep suppressing and moving your forces closer, finally to clear his position with grenades and bayonets.
1: Air assets may be tied up elsewhere, and may miss concealed targets. 2: Artillery fire most likely will be from masked positions that don't fire, knowing you have counter radars. 3: Enemy forces can replenish after bombardment. In the end, you have to do this. You have to blast them and then while they're recovering and figuring out who's left alive, try to overrun the minefields and breach armor defenses.
Yes, better to load up the mech/ armor force on trucks and leave, and out maneuver and flank the enemy to find a weaker spot. Nearly every game/ scenario iv played/ watched where you attack a prepared enemy defense without overwhelming air superiority/ bombing runs, you will lose 50% of your force very fast.
I mean, what's stopping the defenders from laying mines in front of the defenses? this video assumes mines will only be placed in a very specific spot/lane between defenses. Isn't this kind of just stupid? Observing the ukraine war, my point has been proven decisively. The russians made a giant wall of concrete tank barriers and ditches, but nowhere did they place a line of mines between the defenses in an obvious position, which could be exploited. Instead, they placed mines everywhere, some between the defenses sure, but also from the front lines all the way up to the defenses. That's about 10-15km of unaccounted hidden anti-tank/vehicle mines, which you have to clear before even getting near the first line of defense. This means you need a much larger air force to suppress the enemy's artillery, drones, and air attacks, otherwise much like the ukranians if you decide to attack in a large brigade formation you will be traveling for km's in giant funnel kill zones behind your anti-mine tanks before getting anywhere near the first line of defense. You would need to somehow move an entire operational brigade into position by the first line of defense to even have a chance at breaching said defense. Unless we are talking about multiple brigades or division-sized mechanized forces with adequate air power and perfect combined arms, then attacking this sort of defensive line as I have described would be complete and utter suicide, as the ukranians have figured out the hard way.
I'm inclined to say that this program is marvelous, but this simulated operation seems a little bit idealistic. Why, if the Red force has manpads in the line positions, why wouldn't they have them defending their MLRS. Wouldn't using F-16's come with vastly higher risks, than just trying to neutralize the "Danovian" battery with the friendly battery, then using the F-16's for mop up (under the assumption that hostile forces would be sufficiently frazzled, as to be incapable of mounting an effective defense). *Edit*, I should watch the whole video before typing things out, as they will probably be right anyway... *Edit 2*, Ok, now I guess this is warranted, what happens if per say, both of the mick-licks (technical term), are neutralized before they even reach the minefield. Do the remaining forces continue attempting to breach the hostile defense lines? Withdrawal of friendly forces would be catastrophic at this phase of the operation, but staying and continuing the breach could be even more costly. (I guess this is less railing at this quite frankly marvelous simulation, and more at this crappy opsplan that goes to Hades if the slightest hitch happens to two sets of two assets.)
Stated the plow tank can fill in for the ABV if necessary, but isnt ideal because of the narrower blade/lane. Of more concern are the wolverines. If those are lost before they do their job, how is the trench dealt with, just sacrifice a couple tanks to fill it in?
Modern combined arms breaching doctrine actually assumes an elastic defense, given the ease with which fixed assets are spotted and targeted. In an elastic defense, any force stationed next to the barrier is at best a spotting force, designed to run at its earliest convenience, report back to HQ, and call in the QRF to hammer the breach _after_ it has been breached. Defending with dug-in positions as shown in the video is certainly one way to do it, and presents its own set of problems, but it's generally suicide for the defending force. Especially if you're trying to defend against NATO, because NATO will always rule the skies. If they destroy an ABV or Wolverine before running, that's just a bonus, but they'll be shooting into a giant formation of tanks under the watchful eye of a lot of angry iron birds to do so. I just don't see it happening. If it does happen, give that guy a Medal of Honor equivalent. Posthumously, because the angry iron birds will certainly have something to say about that.
@@reimuhakurei2123 They are. Video this week shows a textbook combined arms approach. 3 BMPs worth of Ukrainians ( 30 men), 2 mine clearing charges. Killing 35, capturing 12 and about 40 fleeing in Bakhmut direction. The whole assault took about 10 minutes. Difference there was, they replaced aviation with drones and artillery.
At the command and control level war is a game of chess. You can study every previous game and move of your opponent, but if he a superior general he'll still beat you.
For future CAB ops, a single M1150 assault breacher vehicle has recognized limitations operating alone. Using drones or ugv would be useful, but personnel will still be needed for fine wiring, programing, and precise placement of ordinance. A heavily modified armored compact track armed with remote weapons systems on top or even explosives, or missiles could do the job if deployed in numbers. This is great for greater area coverage, time, and flexibility without compromising safety. These compact tracks could tag team between units and time with different modules such as plows, drills, forks, backhoe, even armored emplacements if enough of them are fielded properly. This could be a much cheaper alternative to the M1150 ABV that risks "total loss". Spreading out in small size but in numbers would definitely spread out the risks, area coverage and shorten time frame to conduct a sizeable breach under fire or stress. The next phase would be employment of exoskeleton suits for finer and narrow breaching ops.
this is an awesome video, but i think it is extremely optimistic to show air support and MLRS just decimating allmost all high value targets before the mechanized units arrive. otherwise a great depiction of breaching tactics!
@@corn1971 thats because it was such a big coalition destroying an inferior force, it wouldnt go this smoothly against a more competent enemy, but then again you would never want to be in an even fight
US doctrine is 3:1 for the attack. But that doesn't have to be manpower, capabilities also count. The real answer is that the excel document widget tells you if you have enough. ; p
@@Dadecorban This is factual information. Not only that, but Excel is set to increase its sacrificial requirements exponentially: they're adding support for Python to Excel, but only if you upload your spreadsheet to the Microsoft servers for inspection. I saw a demo of it working. You type a formula in, and it says "Python is busy" for a couple seconds before spitting the answer out. I simply had to ask "why is my Python dizzy?" but of course the answer is obvious: I shouldn't be swinging it in circles. Duh.
15:05 Well, its May 2023 and the Ukrainian Forces have already changed this trench clearing.. They now use a single Tank with close troop support and the Tank simply approaches the trench and shoots point blank into it and then run over the trench repeatedly back and forward burying alive RuSSian Orcs and then the Ukrainian troops move in on foot to clean up..
This scenario is of platoon sized positions with three connected squad sized positions, with crew served weapons and a weapons squad in the mix. The video you were talking about was against a single squad. The Ukrainian brigade is also less mechanised than the brigades in this scenario and isn't doing an operational breach.
Years ago I watched these videos. I commented that these tactics would be suicide against a modern advanced defending army with ISR and net centricity. Failed Ukrainian Counteroffensive utilizing these exact movements speaks for itself.
Even with netbattle, your forces on the ground are still being suppressed heavily. While the breaching armor might be more vulnerable to antitank assets than hoped, it's one of the best options you have, period. This is the modern equivalent of storming a castle wall. Best case is you do this with huge numbers of units and exploit overruns where you can, or go around and cut them off. As for ukrainian counterassaults... They're another story entirely.
@@KoishiVibin Ukraine was undersupplied for the offensive. People complain about billions of dollars in aid, but to actually stand up an army in a full-scale conventional war is expensive. For the summer offensive, Ukraine was left with WAY too few MBTs, IFVs, no air-assets and being vastly outgunned because NATO didn't provide enough artillery ammunition, because most NATO armies rely very little on artillery. Additionally, the minefields were even deeper than depicted here.
Definitely not. But no war is ever symmetric. No country dares to meet the USAF and NATO in the skies, so they do other things to attempt to deny those skies. GBAD in the case of Russia, A2AD in the case of China.
All it would take would be one accurate barrage for even a single bm-27/BM-30 with cluster and he and the entire breaching element could be knocked out, let alone when entire companies drive through in a straight line they could be wiped out. That's the chances you face when attempting a breach instead of out flanking.
Spread out fire and attention of the enemy across a large front. Could be done either way, brigade lines on flanks, frontal or both. This is an example of frontal, if they roll up CIWS and CRAM those threats are reduced as long as its low volume of munitions. This works and i have used this in Mil Sim games with 50 v 50 wrapping it around map objectives, down to the smoke and constant tank COAX "fire height of a man while causally looking around till target found"-tanks
This assumes the enemy has no credible Air Force or long range air defense nor effective Electronic warfare capability all of which combined defensive measures would throw a wrench 🔧 into the moving parts of this assault. If the enemy’s strike capability has no been heavily degraded, there will be heavy casualties attempting this.
Thats what shaping the combat area is for. long range cruise missile strikes and ballistic missile strikes are meant to degrade enemy capabilities before you even attempt an attack. this is happening currently in Ukraine. Ukraine is targeting Forward position and Rear Bases to limit capabilities. They are targeting Ammunition/fuel depots, Airfields and radar installations/bases.
If it work.. but.. yeah..In a modern army fight, I don't believe it will be that magical ^^, the mine vehicle and bridge will probably be destroyed first.
+Kuhaku not necessarily. The breaching force tanks will probably destroy any enemy vehicles(not entrenched infantry) long before the mine plower reaches the obstacle and while its is behind the breach team first echelon.The 3:1 force concentration will make this a good possibility. The most danger lies in 2 things: 1.artillery fire when the plower is plowing and 2. the most certainly guaranteed enemy counter attack from the defenders rear echelon company. For 1 the solution is a continuous smoke fire mission in front of the enemy's position to obscure the vision of the enemy artillery spotters. For 2, well, its a gamble weather the plowers will survive the counter attack if it happens during lane proofing.That's why you bring more than one! Finally lets not forget the power of our arty. A heavy barrage will do some good damage on the obstacle. You still want to plow it of course. But, as usual, no plan survives first contact with the enemy!
That's where the first two of the breaching tenets come into play: Suppress and Obscure. Artillery, Helicopters, Tanks, and IFVs would target threat vehicles on the line first, destroying the defenders best equipment against breach assets. Other weapons would target dismounted ATGM/AA positions. Smoke grenades on vehicles as well as artillery smoke can contain phosphorous, which will burn hot enough to help obscure enemy thermal sights, further protecting the breach lane. On top of that, the concentration of combat power at the breach means that 4 platoons are defending against a reinforced battalion. That's not including CCA and Artillery as force multipliers.
@@Vladferrum The enemy combatants have a choice between shooting at the units that are trying to kill you now (the air support, the artillery support, etc.) or at the units that are trying to kill you later: the breach force. Remember, they are outnumbered in the first case, and their main advantage is that they are dug in. Every time you fire you risk giving away your position. If you are substantially outnumbered, count on this being noticed quickly, with an appropriately lethal response.
@@Sneedmeister do not lie, they didn't waist it. 5 tanks were lost, in a week, 2 recovered, 1 burnet, two damaged. For that Ukraine has already liberated a lot of places and territories. In the first week of Russian invasion, Russia lost several dozen of tanks to aches or Ukr hands. It seems you don't get what type of the war is. Do not show your total ignorance
@@inzhener2007 no tanks were recovered. how could they be? the tanks were left abandoned in a minefield in either direction with artillery zeroed on their position. Russians literally waited for tanks to enter the minefield, and then laid more mines behind them. in what situation would ukraine be able to retrieve these tanks? I think you're just stupid and instantly believe what "officials" tell you because you want ukraine to win
Compared to what? I agree the reliance on a relatively small number of breach vehicles is risky, but I don't see any other way to breach defenses of this nature in short order.
Yeah well thats because Slavs are 60 IQ. Ukrainians were given all the training and equipment they needed, but they're still fucking retarded and all of that was wasted
This is an idealistic attack where red force is less sophisticated. I mean if air defences was crippled could you just drop some bombs or a couple expensive tomahawk in there lol
It's almost imbossible to destroy entrenched infantry with indirect bombardment. U can cause losses, but not complete elemination. Even with modern, superaccurate rockets, because u need hundreds of them and hundreds of sorties hours. And anyway u cant kill all soldiers in their personal ratholes. In fact the effect of such bombardment would not cost its price.
@Drew Peacock Fuel bombs could be as ineffective as conventional. See vietnam experience. Tacical nukes are completely another level of conflict. If being used it will cause global nuclear warfare.
you jok bro . armored battalion in a fixed defance position without long range AA medium range AA and without covrage of CAS and CAP airplanes . this is not true bro you put the battalion in death situation
They hit anti air positions with artillery before sending aircraft. Along with conflicting airspace, it is time so the jets dont even share the same airspace as artillery shells traveling to their target.
Why is this stuff on TH-cam? You don't see Chinese or Russian TTP videos on TH-cam. Why do we insist on letting enemies know our tactics and capabilities?
Awesome video. (I wanna say that if Donovia had invaded Ukraine instead of Russia, they might have actually won in that first week... but then again, how long have they been attacking Atropia, who's still around?? Lol Now THAT is the forever war..)
If I were commander I would set up a small base and start air superiority sending in air assets with surgical UAV strikes. I would then airdrop a long range recon group which will then facilitate in the drop of a ranger company behind with fire support. During this shock and awe we start a minor breach but airdrop another company that will clear the trenches after this shock and awe I believe we will have breached the defenses and have total control of their position.
We were so naive 8 months ago, back when we thought Russians knew how to fight. Nowadays we know that most of their slave soldiers would be dead from drug overdoses and chronic health conditions before showing up without any shovels to dig trenches with.
If i was your "enemy" to counter combined arms offensive such as the one shown, i would divide my fighting force into squads consisting of fireteams/anti-tank teams,forward sniper observer scouts, sappers planting RCIEDs as a area/access denial weapon, decentralised command structure, guerilla warfare defensive maneuver tactics, air defense systems would need to be mobile using hide shoot & scoot techniques with mobile SAMs further protected by point defense guns/SAMs to complicate enemy SEAD missions. I would deploy highly-mobile fighting units no larger than platoon size each unit. ATGM teams would be backed up by mortar teams to shell enemy staging areas/advancing columns firing posts. HE frag shells used. Send highly-skilled motivated guerillas to your rear launching harassment operations possibily stretching resources, deep interdiction strikes sniping mining ambush raids on forward units using six man or so teams to conduct LRRP. Basically i wouldnt fight using conventional military tactics & direct prolonged contact but special operations missions like direct-action, special recon, rear strikes, planting of remote IEDs minefeild as a defensive line access area denial weapon small mobile ATGM teams sniper teams with anti-material rifles mortar teams providing fire-support also. Assymetrical warfare is just as effective and shouldnt be underestimated & it sure as hell not as damn complicated without requiring too much extensive logistical support.
If i was in charge of air defense battery like if equipped with Tor or Pantsir or SA-3 Pechora 2TM with anti-stealth AESA radar deploying radar guided close in weapons systems guns in assest defense role to further protect mobile SAMs capable of autonomous operation its capable of intercepting HARM like missiles & other precision guided munitions, decoy radar emitters would be used also to fool anti-radiation air to surface missiles while some SAMs can be fitted with anti-stealth radar or anti-radiation seekers in the missiles cone in order to home in jamming signals given off by jamner pods carried by the jets, i would also use the hide shoot n scoot tactic against your air power with reserve camouflaged mobile SAM TELARs manned by disciplined skilled air defense troops. Rapid reload rehearsal drills would be essential in a unit under my command. Im playing devils advocate here lol i mean thats how you can counter air superiority making them fly higher helicopters or low flying close air support like A-10 hog would be near impossible, each mobile SAM TEL would be accompanied by a security element also to provide protection against enemy specops forces. What now uh? Lol
11:45 "after the gap crossing, the roller-tank, if still operational..." the simulation looks very clean but they know it's a very bloody kind of operation
Minimum 50% casualty rates at the breach. You won't be able to tell though because of the chaos.
If you think that this plan seems to be too complex and relies on so many things to go right to pull off, that you overwhelm in enemy in numbers, you are probably correct. However, your conclusion that this plan is useless, is wrong. And here is why:
A combined arms breach against a combined arms defense is the most difficult task in modern warfare bar none, with the exception of either an opposed amphibious landing or a river crossing. That is why you need a War College, a General Staff, a well-trained officer corp, NCO corp and soldiers who practice the theory and craft for years in the event they need to do one of these things. That is how to can get EVERYTHING to work right for you when you need it to. Is it a suicide mission? Yes, but war is dangerous. Yet nothing short of a total commitment of every single arms in your inventory can make it work. You can't just bomb or shell the enemy to dust. They tried to shell Somme for 10 days in 1918 and the moment the infantry got out of the trench and advance, a few machine guns mowed them down. The enemy is not stupid. They are not gonna sit around for you to bomb them. If you don't put infantry and tanks upfront threatening to break through, they are going to hide, dug in, or keep their reserves out of the way.
The 1991 Gulf war was an anomaly because the Iraqis cooperated in their own destruction. In 1999, NATO learned that since they did not put boots on the ground, the enemy simply hide and create decoys to be bombed. Same thing will happen here: the rule is to put a small screening force to detect a potential threat. If they try to bomb you without ground forces to advance, simply abandon your position. If they indeed advance without indirect fire support, rush back into position and shoot them.
In short, if the enemy is competent and can employ the whole spectrum of arms to oppose you, the only possible response should be: use your own full spectrum of arms, then add numerical superiority. The old rule of 3-to-1 attacker vs defender still works. If both sides have all the arms and use them competently, the bigger side wins; at least locally and tactically. Then you need some operational genius to turn a penetration to a exploitation attack and surround the enemy, then cut him off. No single weapon or solution will ever work against a competent enemy. They tried, but it never worked. Not artillery, not tanks, not aircraft, not napalm, not precision-guided munitions. Nothing.
Short a nuclear weapon.
Thank you! The number of people I've encountered that say with a straight face "we have drones and stealth planes, we dont need anything else" is depressing. Not to mention a bit reminiscent of when the guided missile (see Phantom II for details), came about
RESRERING
Indeed. And during the whole process ENY must be suppressed otherwise they will take out breaching elements. Even that way they will try to take them out first.
"..the only possible response should be: use your own full spectrum of arms, then add numerical superiority. "
Absolutely not. This WW1 logic. Will probably give you WW1 results.
@@maverikmiller6746 then what is your solution?
This is what the Ukrainians are executing right now during the counteroffensive. Except for the fact that they're not having air support. It's gonna be insanely difficult.
more like impossible while wasting their assets
The tactic itself works if only light vehicles are countered. I just looked at photos of another broken column. At the beginning, the destroyed trawls, and behind the column of equipment that moved behind them. They will not leave the minefield anywhere.
to get the broader picture I'd recommend Tom Cooper's reports (aka Sarcastosaurus).
R.I.P. ukraine fascists 😂😂
@@simonmonk1125 How's Kherson, comrade? Still owned by the orcs?
This video was a pleasure to watch. Great work again.
Amazing work! I have to echo BN880 - these are the best videos of VBS and of tactical tutorial videos around. The production values are so high. Thank you!
Just awesome!
A work of art!
These kind of explanations really help to envision Tactics!
Thank you so much for sharing this lesson.
This learning video is of top quality.
I love when H. John Benjamin teaches me military strategy.
Be interesting to see how this has changed in presence of drones.
Consider them precision fires with limited trenchcleaning capabilities.
Thank you for all of your hard work.
As an Atropia vet, this really triggers my PTSD.
We didn't even get any Atropian oil. What bullshit.
We did the same training at NTC back in 99. Our Combat Engineer Platoon was part of the breaching Team. Only this time we have the Apaches for air support. 65th and 84th Engineers SAPPERS!
"WITNESS ME!" before the OPFOR wins at the breach.
@@Dadecorban lmao WITNESSED!
The breaching points themselves are such small and vulnerable targets. As long as the enemy has some air assets or indirect fire capabilities nobody is going to get through there.
Yes but that's what the SEAD, interdiction, air superiority, overwhelming counter-battery ability all shown in the beginning is for.
dropping bombs on the breach point is basically a suicide mission. If they want to trying to meet our suicide mission with certain suicide....then I accept the terms.
Tactically, with equal forces, or near equal, this is impossible. You succeed at the very difficult at the tactical level because at the operational level, the offensive/attack has been planned so that forces are disproportionate. You are able to effectively suppress the enemy, you are able to threaten their artillery every time they fire, and you have enough battalions to get to the X. Operationally you've concealed the identity of the main effort, and the timing. Strategically, which points on the front get an offensive operation are concealed or are confused through use of false attacks, fake unit buildups (inflatables), false orders landing in enemy hands, and degraded enemy strategic recon. If this doesn't happen at the operational and strategic levels then your attack should fail. The engineers die (Engineers are expendable). You get more engineers, and then get better at the operational and strategic level. Try again. Engineers die. Repeat.
Warfare is not a closed board game where you need to follow a specific role. You aren't required to hit the strongest point of enemy defense. You hit them where it's weak or when they're unable to hold the line because a diversion was created somewhere. This video was meant to be used after bypassing that method not a diy to make a breakthrough against the strongest enemy defense.
@@adamanderson3042so this only works if you can afford, produce and deploy an overwhelming large airforce
A brilliant video.
For people saying if the enemy has that or defend with that then this will be a suicide or a failure, well, the point of breaching is not to hit the strongest enemy defense but create a string of diversion on the frontline, make probe attacks and do a breakthrough where the lines are weak or when the enemies makes a mistake.
This is insanity. It requires so much to go right to work. Those engineer units are practically on a suicide run. Clearing mines, under fire from entrenched opfor with AT weapons. Not only that, there are high valued assets up front in order for this to happen. Against a modern fighting force, I can't see this going well. Even against an entrenched force that's stuck in the 80's, I can see this being incredibly difficult at best.
Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong. Personally, I would have taken a few notes from the official Somme strategy guide and shelled that position for a few days straight before my attack.
+thespartanmk1
That's why officer training is very important. These people spend years theorizing and practicing their craft. Of course they NEED to be able to do this, otherwise you lose a war.
First, day long shelling is a tactics that is obsolete in 1918. It just do not work. Why? because the principle remedy is to only station a light screening force of machineguns in the front trenches to absorb the fire. As soon as the shelling stops, the reserves are thrown in and you are going to walk into a killzone. Shelling reserve forces are very difficult: you don't have good intelligence, they are usually well dug-in. Also, even for the troops in the front trenches, they can still be saved; by a prepared fall back communication trench, or actually jumping out of the trench and take cover in the shell holes in front of the trench. The bombardment is typically lighter there.
you should note that the defender is only a BMP battalion with an attached tank platoon. To overcome this defense, the attacker use an entire armored brigade with 2 tank battalions, and 2 armored infantry battalions, plus other (non-divisional) assets. This is a rather tank heavy unit for a penetration attack. In WWII, Eastern Front, Red Army, a penetration attack is typically done with an infantry heavy formation reinforced with tanks. An infantry division with a tank battalion attached.
Believe it or not; this is the type of tactics already developed in WWII. Typically, to achieve a break through, you might want to concentrate your force so that you outnumber the enemy 3 or 5 to 1. A brigade vs a battalion. Then you hit them with a concentrated barrage of divisional and non-divisional artillery, close air support and then advance as close as possible with the bombardment and kill the enemy. Since you have overwhelming number; just by numbers alone you will break through.
You can't just stand at some distance and dropping shells and bombs. The enemy aren't stupid. They are not gonna sit there with their thumbs up their ass waiting to be bombed. They wil hide, they will dig in, they will keep reserves.. If you are not presenting them any ground force that threaten a break through, they will just dig in and never show; so you can't target them. You need ground forces: tanks and infantry to present a target, pin and spot the enemy, force him to shoot back in order to give your air force and artillery a target.
Well said! This is basically the essence of the whole thing. Fascinatingly complicated, an art in itself but very cruel the War Game is.
Indirect fire capabilities have come quite a long way, and if the breaching forces did have squadrons of Apaches, F-16s, MLRS, and 155 mm cluster artillery concentrated I think they should be able to do it, especially since they specifically state to concentrate against only 2 platoons.
Of course, the more modern the opposing army the more likely that their own firing assets and air support will come into play. I would hope that this is just treated as the "ideal" situation, with a lot of exercises running through scenarios where something goes wrong.
Moar smoke, i can still see my hand
You under estimate the power of all those COAX.. They fire until they see something and whatever they see while shooting like that is pretty dumb to peek in view of it.
putin in bed at 3am watching this video.
Thank You for this video and your chanel great job!!!! Please do more!!!
Im pretty sure when we did this during a brigade calfex, there was smoke everywhere, sand blowing everywhere, when it was our tanks turn to cross over the berm and follow the flags with the cleared lane, im pretty sure I drove to far left , ran over the flags, and drove into the simulated minefield bu about 10 meters, before the commander corrected me to get back into the lane. It was hard to see, i should have used my dve( the thermal screen with the camera so the driver can see at night
Based on what criteria will the breach force ABV and mine-roller know when the minefield has ended at the far side? Wil that be determined by recon capabilities used before the operation? What recon capabilities would be suitable for that? Small recon teams doing covert breaches on foot at night in sections of the obstacle to avoid detection with mine-detection equipment and just figuring it out?
Amazing video, respect and thanks from your humble NATO ally - Bulgaria
It's always useful to understand what the general plan should be regardless. However, the idea that what's shown is anything other than a suicide mission when going up against a similar scale conventional army is...frightening.
Smoke, smoke, smoke, smoke, moar smoke i can still see my hand
hopefully, the attackers greatly outnumber the defenders in the event of something like this. no way any good commander would voluntarily go toe to toe with a near peer force thats equal in size _and_ dug in, and expect anything other than defeat.
What part of two battalions vs two platoons did you fail to parse?
$64,000 question: All this, plus drones.
I have a question. Why don't the airstrikes and artillery take out every enemy asset that could pose a potential threat to the breach operation? Is it a financial question (guided bombs being more expensive)? If so, is the cost in dollars spent on jet fuel and bombs really higher than the potential loss of expensive equipment (tanks, choppers, etc.) and trained personell (strictly financially speaking - the loss of life is always to be avoided)?
I have no education in military strategy or tactics so in my simple mind the most effective approach would be to conduct airstrikes until all enemy air defenses are destroyed, then move in with attack helicopters and/or conduct artillery strikes from safe positions in order to take out all tanks and artillery, or just have a B-52 carpet bomb across the entire enemy position - and not before all enemy defense capabilities are made inoperable does the friendly force move in to conduct the breach. This approach would require significantly less friendly ground assets to protect the breach operation and considerably reduce the risk of loss of life and equipment, as the breach team would be able to conduct the breach in peace and quiet.
But surely I am missing something, otherwise this would be standard operating procedure. I would very much appreciate if someone could educate me on the tactical/strategical reasoning behind this. Thank you!
Well, this will work if:
- the enemy mass his force in the first echelon in poorly camouflaged positions
- and you have perfect intelligence on where his positions are, both first line and reserves
- the enemy don't attempt to keep reserves conduct good camouflage.
Against a competent enemy, your reconnaissance by air will turn up empty, or worse, detecting dummy sacrificial positions. Then what next? you will dump all those long ranger artillery, B-52, and whatnot against essentially empty positions. When your actual tanks and attack forces roll up, the enemy open fire from their concealed actual firing positions and now you are fucked. They can array in both width and depth so most of your munitions will hit essentially nothing.
So what's the solution? exactly as this video stated. Get as much intel as you can on your mission. Use all assets and attempt to concentrate and overwhelm an enemy at the breaching point. Maintain continuous fire with all weapon systems at all ranges to suppress the enemy. Drop smoke to obscure them. keep suppressing and moving your forces closer, finally to clear his position with grenades and bayonets.
1: Air assets may be tied up elsewhere, and may miss concealed targets.
2: Artillery fire most likely will be from masked positions that don't fire, knowing you have counter radars.
3: Enemy forces can replenish after bombardment.
In the end, you have to do this. You have to blast them and then while they're recovering and figuring out who's left alive, try to overrun the minefields and breach armor defenses.
Such a good reply! Thank you.@@KoishiVibin
@@Shougun2007
Thank you as well.
All of this to defeat a platoon sized garrison force using 80s tech. It is really humbling.
Now do this in rainforest, burger people.
This whole operation looks like a suicide pact without heavy air support.
Drones and gps guided artillery take that spot in the newest battlefields. Anti air is too prevalent.
Yes, better to load up the mech/ armor force on trucks and leave, and out maneuver and flank the enemy to find a weaker spot. Nearly every game/ scenario iv played/ watched where you attack a prepared enemy defense without overwhelming air superiority/ bombing runs, you will lose 50% of your force very fast.
@@Mp57navythis is NATO doctrine we're talking about here. Scissors beats rock. The NGAD isn't called "penetrating counter air" for nothing.
I mean, what's stopping the defenders from laying mines in front of the defenses? this video assumes mines will only be placed in a very specific spot/lane between defenses. Isn't this kind of just stupid? Observing the ukraine war, my point has been proven decisively. The russians made a giant wall of concrete tank barriers and ditches, but nowhere did they place a line of mines between the defenses in an obvious position, which could be exploited. Instead, they placed mines everywhere, some between the defenses sure, but also from the front lines all the way up to the defenses. That's about 10-15km of unaccounted hidden anti-tank/vehicle mines, which you have to clear before even getting near the first line of defense. This means you need a much larger air force to suppress the enemy's artillery, drones, and air attacks, otherwise much like the ukranians if you decide to attack in a large brigade formation you will be traveling for km's in giant funnel kill zones behind your anti-mine tanks before getting anywhere near the first line of defense. You would need to somehow move an entire operational brigade into position by the first line of defense to even have a chance at breaching said defense. Unless we are talking about multiple brigades or division-sized mechanized forces with adequate air power and perfect combined arms, then attacking this sort of defensive line as I have described would be complete and utter suicide, as the ukranians have figured out the hard way.
I'm inclined to say that this program is marvelous, but this simulated operation seems a little bit idealistic. Why, if the Red force has manpads in the line positions, why wouldn't they have them defending their MLRS. Wouldn't using F-16's come with vastly higher risks, than just trying to neutralize the "Danovian" battery with the friendly battery, then using the F-16's for mop up (under the assumption that hostile forces would be sufficiently frazzled, as to be incapable of mounting an effective defense).
*Edit*, I should watch the whole video before typing things out, as they will probably be right anyway...
*Edit 2*, Ok, now I guess this is warranted, what happens if per say, both of the mick-licks (technical term), are neutralized before they even reach the minefield. Do the remaining forces continue attempting to breach the hostile defense lines? Withdrawal of friendly forces would be catastrophic at this phase of the operation, but staying and continuing the breach could be even more costly.
(I guess this is less railing at this quite frankly marvelous simulation, and more at this crappy opsplan that goes to Hades if the slightest hitch happens to two sets of two assets.)
Stated the plow tank can fill in for the ABV if necessary, but isnt ideal because of the narrower blade/lane. Of more concern are the wolverines. If those are lost before they do their job, how is the trench dealt with, just sacrifice a couple tanks to fill it in?
In your PACE plan for the reduction phase of SOSRA, you'll have redundancies in place in the event that the MCLC fails based on what's available
"per se" is not written the way you think and it doesn't _mean_ what you think it does. It's not a synonym for "let's say."
Modern combined arms breaching doctrine actually assumes an elastic defense, given the ease with which fixed assets are spotted and targeted. In an elastic defense, any force stationed next to the barrier is at best a spotting force, designed to run at its earliest convenience, report back to HQ, and call in the QRF to hammer the breach _after_ it has been breached. Defending with dug-in positions as shown in the video is certainly one way to do it, and presents its own set of problems, but it's generally suicide for the defending force. Especially if you're trying to defend against NATO, because NATO will always rule the skies. If they destroy an ABV or Wolverine before running, that's just a bonus, but they'll be shooting into a giant formation of tanks under the watchful eye of a lot of angry iron birds to do so. I just don't see it happening. If it does happen, give that guy a Medal of Honor equivalent. Posthumously, because the angry iron birds will certainly have something to say about that.
Miss the days of the Sappers in the breach.
I just hope the Ukrainians are using this training video as an asset.
unfortunately they arent
@@reimuhakurei2123 They are. Video this week shows a textbook combined arms approach. 3 BMPs worth of Ukrainians ( 30 men), 2 mine clearing charges. Killing 35, capturing 12 and about 40 fleeing in Bakhmut direction. The whole assault took about 10 minutes. Difference there was, they replaced aviation with drones and artillery.
@@Mp57navy no look at the video where they lost like 10 vehicles leopards and bradleys
I saw the vid you were talking about though it was good
euhm oke nice but what if the enemy uses airsupport ?
That’s why we have an Air Force. To make sure their air support never leaves the ground.
which software is used in making such visualisation?
Looks like VBS
At the command and control level war is a game of chess. You can study every previous game and move of your opponent, but if he a superior general he'll still beat you.
For future CAB ops, a single M1150 assault breacher vehicle has recognized limitations operating alone. Using drones or ugv would be useful, but personnel will still be needed for fine wiring, programing, and precise placement of ordinance. A heavily modified armored compact track armed with remote weapons systems on top or even explosives, or missiles could do the job if deployed in numbers. This is great for greater area coverage, time, and flexibility without compromising safety. These compact tracks could tag team between units and time with different modules such as plows, drills, forks, backhoe, even armored emplacements if enough of them are fielded properly. This could be a much cheaper alternative to the M1150 ABV that risks "total loss". Spreading out in small size but in numbers would definitely spread out the risks, area coverage and shorten time frame to conduct a sizeable breach under fire or stress. The next phase would be employment of exoskeleton suits for finer and narrow breaching ops.
Wait up a minute. This happened March 2012. I was there. Plus the ABVs only came to the Army in 2011.
You served in Donovia?
So what, you got something against Donovians?
the US is just so awesome, sure it has its issues, every country does, but the military is just awesome.
Until they find some oil in your country
@@astroganov The US pays for it's oil. IThe Iraqi oil belong to Iraq.
@@jackkozlowski5201 pays with what? They print whatever amount of currency they want and "buy"?
It’s funny they’re using Combat Mission
this is an awesome video, but i think it is extremely optimistic to show air support and MLRS just decimating allmost all high value targets before the mechanized units arrive. otherwise a great depiction of breaching tactics!
See 1991 Gulf War
its definitely what would happen if everything was perfect and the enemy had no anti air and anti tanks
@@corn1971 thats because it was such a big coalition destroying an inferior force, it wouldnt go this smoothly against a more competent enemy, but then again you would never want to be in an even fight
Question: what is the attack/defend ratio of combatant groups?
US doctrine is 3:1 for the attack. But that doesn't have to be manpower, capabilities also count. The real answer is that the excel document widget tells you if you have enough. ; p
@@Dadecorban the Excel document widget will tell you anything, given enough sacrifices. All hail the Excel document widget!
@@mage3690 Excel has killed more Atropians than the Donovians have.
@@Dadecorban This is factual information. Not only that, but Excel is set to increase its sacrificial requirements exponentially: they're adding support for Python to Excel, but only if you upload your spreadsheet to the Microsoft servers for inspection.
I saw a demo of it working. You type a formula in, and it says "Python is busy" for a couple seconds before spitting the answer out. I simply had to ask "why is my Python dizzy?" but of course the answer is obvious: I shouldn't be swinging it in circles. Duh.
4 or 5 to 1 according to this th-cam.com/video/oI0Vprf7FBo/w-d-xo.htmlsi=JCt7huhNZW81DHKF&t=1536
15:05 Well, its May 2023 and the Ukrainian Forces have already changed this trench clearing.. They now use a single Tank with close troop support and the Tank simply approaches the trench and shoots point blank into it and then run over the trench repeatedly back and forward burying alive RuSSian Orcs and then the Ukrainian troops move in on foot to clean up..
This scenario is of platoon sized positions with three connected squad sized positions, with crew served weapons and a weapons squad in the mix. The video you were talking about was against a single squad. The Ukrainian brigade is also less mechanised than the brigades in this scenario and isn't doing an operational breach.
Years ago I watched these videos. I commented that these tactics would be suicide against a modern advanced defending army with ISR and net centricity. Failed Ukrainian Counteroffensive utilizing these exact movements speaks for itself.
Even with netbattle, your forces on the ground are still being suppressed heavily. While the breaching armor might be more vulnerable to antitank assets than hoped, it's one of the best options you have, period.
This is the modern equivalent of storming a castle wall. Best case is you do this with huge numbers of units and exploit overruns where you can, or go around and cut them off.
As for ukrainian counterassaults... They're another story entirely.
@@KoishiVibin Ukraine was undersupplied for the offensive. People complain about billions of dollars in aid, but to actually stand up an army in a full-scale conventional war is expensive. For the summer offensive, Ukraine was left with WAY too few MBTs, IFVs, no air-assets and being vastly outgunned because NATO didn't provide enough artillery ammunition, because most NATO armies rely very little on artillery. Additionally, the minefields were even deeper than depicted here.
M109s don't fire while traversing.
ok, now take away the airpower
i doubt this will ever work in a symmetric war...
Definitely not. But no war is ever symmetric. No country dares to meet the USAF and NATO in the skies, so they do other things to attempt to deny those skies. GBAD in the case of Russia, A2AD in the case of China.
Heey thanks!😊
All it would take would be one accurate barrage for even a single bm-27/BM-30 with cluster and he and the entire breaching element could be knocked out, let alone when entire companies drive through in a straight line they could be wiped out. That's the chances you face when attempting a breach instead of out flanking.
Spread out fire and attention of the enemy across a large front. Could be done either way, brigade lines on flanks, frontal or both. This is an example of frontal, if they roll up CIWS and CRAM those threats are reduced as long as its low volume of munitions. This works and i have used this in Mil Sim games with 50 v 50 wrapping it around map objectives, down to the smoke and constant tank COAX "fire height of a man while causally looking around till target found"-tanks
HiHow to get the subtitles of this videoI need to translate it to other languagesThanks
Anyone who should see this already speaks English. And people who don’t, shouldn’t see it.
This assumes the enemy has no credible Air Force or long range air defense nor effective Electronic warfare capability all of which combined defensive measures would throw a wrench 🔧 into the moving parts of this assault. If the enemy’s strike capability has no been heavily degraded, there will be heavy casualties attempting this.
Thats what shaping the combat area is for. long range cruise missile strikes and ballistic missile strikes are meant to degrade enemy capabilities before you even attempt an attack. this is happening currently in Ukraine. Ukraine is targeting Forward position and Rear Bases to limit capabilities. They are targeting Ammunition/fuel depots, Airfields and radar installations/bases.
yup heavy casualties if it was an even fight
In war we should "blitzkrieg" with air, land & sea. The French did it to the Axis Germany.
It is true if we don't have all the element of offense.
If it work.. but.. yeah..In a modern army fight, I don't believe it will be that magical ^^, the mine vehicle and bridge will probably be destroyed first.
Kuhaku The magic of theory: if it won't work in reality, it'll work in theory.
Me262 Spatz you don't say...
+Kuhaku not necessarily. The breaching force tanks will probably destroy any enemy vehicles(not entrenched infantry) long before the mine plower reaches the obstacle and while its is behind the breach team first echelon.The 3:1 force concentration will make this a good possibility. The most danger lies in 2 things: 1.artillery fire when the plower is plowing and 2. the most certainly guaranteed enemy counter attack from the defenders rear echelon company. For 1 the solution is a continuous smoke fire mission in front of the enemy's position to obscure the vision of the enemy artillery spotters. For 2, well, its a gamble weather the plowers will survive the counter attack if it happens during lane proofing.That's why you bring more than one! Finally lets not forget the power of our arty. A heavy barrage will do some good damage on the obstacle. You still want to plow it of course. But, as usual, no plan survives first contact with the enemy!
That's where the first two of the breaching tenets come into play: Suppress and Obscure. Artillery, Helicopters, Tanks, and IFVs would target threat vehicles on the line first, destroying the defenders best equipment against breach assets. Other weapons would target dismounted ATGM/AA positions. Smoke grenades on vehicles as well as artillery smoke can contain phosphorous, which will burn hot enough to help obscure enemy thermal sights, further protecting the breach lane. On top of that, the concentration of combat power at the breach means that 4 platoons are defending against a reinforced battalion. That's not including CCA and Artillery as force multipliers.
What is this? Fantastic movie? Why the hell opposing force doing NOTHING!?
What the fuck are they supposed to do? Attach bayonets and banzai charge? Its a little OPFOR platoon vs a brigade.
Its a training video. Expect to see the friendlies get blown to bits?
@@ronaldthompson4989 At least some resistance. No? It looks like playing chess, where your opponent does not move his figures.
@@Vladferrum The enemy combatants have a choice between shooting at the units that are trying to kill you now (the air support, the artillery support, etc.) or at the units that are trying to kill you later: the breach force. Remember, they are outnumbered in the first case, and their main advantage is that they are dug in. Every time you fire you risk giving away your position. If you are substantially outnumbered, count on this being noticed quickly, with an appropriately lethal response.
Please give Ukraine such machines!
Germany did, in the form of breach-focused Leopards. Ukrainians wasted them by driving directly into a minefield and getting themselves blown up.
@@Sneedmeister do not lie, they didn't waist it. 5 tanks were lost, in a week, 2 recovered, 1 burnet, two damaged. For that Ukraine has already liberated a lot of places and territories. In the first week of Russian invasion, Russia lost several dozen of tanks to aches or Ukr hands. It seems you don't get what type of the war is. Do not show your total ignorance
@@inzhener2007 no tanks were recovered. how could they be? the tanks were left abandoned in a minefield in either direction with artillery zeroed on their position. Russians literally waited for tanks to enter the minefield, and then laid more mines behind them.
in what situation would ukraine be able to retrieve these tanks? I think you're just stupid and instantly believe what "officials" tell you because you want ukraine to win
@@inzhener2007how’s that total ignorance going for yuh?
@@po3-doc159 who you? Ты из какой какашки вылез?
Lol I read secure and reduce as seduce
"Cavalry"
1) Buy cheap drones
2) Put anti-tank grenades on drones
3) Bomb Wolverines with drones
4) ???
5) PROFIT!!
1:03 Dang ..... 2:34 Holy fookin shit
I see you Grump -onie
I think this breaching methodology is way too complicated and risky, that is, it's fucked!!!
What would you recommend?
Compared to what? I agree the reliance on a relatively small number of breach vehicles is risky, but I don't see any other way to breach defenses of this nature in short order.
Didn't work in Zaporozhie though
Yeah well thats because Slavs are 60 IQ. Ukrainians were given all the training and equipment they needed, but they're still fucking retarded and all of that was wasted
beauty, beauty szkoda że nic nie rozumiem :P
Need for realistic F2F exercises proved.
some people said its outdated anyways
This is an idealistic attack where red force is less sophisticated. I mean if air defences was crippled could you just drop some bombs or a couple expensive tomahawk in there lol
It's almost imbossible to destroy entrenched infantry with indirect bombardment. U can cause losses, but not complete elemination. Even with modern, superaccurate rockets, because u need hundreds of them and hundreds of sorties hours. And anyway u cant kill all soldiers in their personal ratholes. In fact the effect of such bombardment would not cost its price.
@Drew Peacock Fuel bombs could be as ineffective as conventional. See vietnam experience. Tacical nukes are completely another level of conflict. If being used it will cause global nuclear warfare.
you jok bro . armored battalion in a fixed defance position without long range AA medium range AA and without covrage of CAS and CAP airplanes . this is not true bro you put the battalion in death situation
They hit anti air positions with artillery before sending aircraft. Along with conflicting airspace, it is time so the jets dont even share the same airspace as artillery shells traveling to their target.
@@1truthbegettingtold275 I see you Grump -onie
all very pretty but now a days it man pads and long range radar for mobile anti air not so good
Why is this stuff on TH-cam? You don't see Chinese or Russian TTP videos on TH-cam. Why do we insist on letting enemies know our tactics and capabilities?
Every thing explained is already obsolete
These videos provide the public, as well as potential recruits material to study to understand the way in which modern war is applied.
It's declassified
It has been declassified, so it is probably no longer the practice.
You're already see what Russian tactics are like in Ukraine.
Awesome video.
(I wanna say that if Donovia had invaded Ukraine instead of Russia, they might have actually won in that first week... but then again, how long have they been attacking Atropia, who's still around?? Lol Now THAT is the forever war..)
As an Atropia vet, this really triggers my PTSD. 😔
If I were commander I would set up a small base and start air superiority sending in air assets with surgical UAV strikes. I would then airdrop a long range recon group which will then facilitate in the drop of a ranger company behind with fire support. During this shock and awe we start a minor breach but airdrop another company that will clear the trenches after this shock and awe I believe we will have breached the defenses and have total control of their position.
Hmm and what if you don't have control of tge sky? No one does in Ukraine.
A valid point, but I think drones may help fill the vacuum of air support.
Sounds like mumbo jumbo to me!!!
must be hard living life below 90 IQ, im sorry you cant even begin to comprehend something that is laid out so straight forwardly
Lee Amy Gonzalez Karen Lee Barbara
Zaporizhia plains.. hope ukrainians ll master this difficult operation. EW against drones is much needed in 2023 also
If this strategy for defeat Russians Army...well I can say, good luck!))
Looooool.....
Lmao
We were so naive 8 months ago, back when we thought Russians knew how to fight. Nowadays we know that most of their slave soldiers would be dead from drug overdoses and chronic health conditions before showing up without any shovels to dig trenches with.
гуд лак рашнс))
Lol okay fashie
If i was your "enemy" to counter combined arms offensive such as the one shown, i would divide my fighting force into squads consisting of fireteams/anti-tank teams,forward sniper observer scouts, sappers planting RCIEDs as a area/access denial weapon, decentralised command structure, guerilla warfare defensive maneuver tactics, air defense systems would need to be mobile using hide shoot & scoot techniques with mobile SAMs further protected by point defense guns/SAMs to complicate enemy SEAD missions. I would deploy highly-mobile fighting units no larger than platoon size each unit. ATGM teams would be backed up by mortar teams to shell enemy staging areas/advancing columns firing posts. HE frag shells used. Send highly-skilled motivated guerillas to your rear launching harassment operations possibily stretching resources, deep interdiction strikes sniping mining ambush raids on forward units using six man or so teams to conduct LRRP. Basically i wouldnt fight using conventional military tactics & direct prolonged contact but special operations missions like direct-action, special recon, rear strikes, planting of remote IEDs minefeild as a defensive line access area denial weapon small mobile ATGM teams sniper teams with anti-material rifles mortar teams providing fire-support also. Assymetrical warfare is just as effective and shouldnt be underestimated & it sure as hell not as damn complicated without requiring too much extensive logistical support.
And a partridge in a pear tree
lol
what "lol" ? this is strategy based on attack on soft defences, not equal force.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂 ДБ!
Пустыня, танки, авиация, враги не стреляют. Hollywood. Американские сказки 😆
If i was in charge of air defense battery like if equipped with Tor or Pantsir or SA-3 Pechora 2TM with anti-stealth AESA radar deploying radar guided close in weapons systems guns in assest defense role to further protect mobile SAMs capable of autonomous operation its capable of intercepting HARM like missiles & other precision guided munitions, decoy radar emitters would be used also to fool anti-radiation air to surface missiles while some SAMs can be fitted with anti-stealth radar or anti-radiation seekers in the missiles cone in order to home in jamming signals given off by jamner pods carried by the jets, i would also use the hide shoot n scoot tactic against your air power with reserve camouflaged mobile SAM TELARs manned by disciplined skilled air defense troops. Rapid reload rehearsal drills would be essential in a unit under my command. Im playing devils advocate here lol i mean thats how you can counter air superiority making them fly higher helicopters or low flying close air support like A-10 hog would be near impossible, each mobile SAM TEL would be accompanied by a security element also to provide protection against enemy specops forces. What now uh? Lol
We're going to do SOSRA. Bitches love SOSRA
FIX BAYONETS!