The cool thing about flying the Warthog in combat is that by the time you'd be deployed, our side would already have at least air superiority, possibly air supremacy. There wouldn't be much to challenge you in the air, and the damn thing is so heavily armored against ground fire you're relatively safe.

I have no doubt. I always sink the tankers first.

KA-BOOM! hahahahahahahaha!:arrgh!:

Well to be fair anyone that thinks of a tank as a place to hide in doesn't really grasp the basic concept of armored warfare. :DL

After all tanks are armored fists and you don't hide your fists in a fight. You smash them into your enemies face. (queue Patton theme song) :D

Somewhat true, and somewhat untrue.

The value of tanks lies within "shock effect" and mobility. They must be employed against the enemy's weakest points and then use their mobility to force the enemy into a disadvantageous position. The same is true with any military unit, but tanks are the best performers in open terrain.

August is, however, completely correct about the fallacy of using tanks for protection. A tank must operate as the infantryman does, making maximum use of cover and concealment. In modern armored warfare, the tank that sees first, kills first.

Tanks must be fast, agile, and accurate. Protection is a secondary concern. This is doubly true with the advent of modern artillery-spotting and munitiions, and the increasing sophistication of I-AT weapons. Armor never realy keeps pace with weapons technology, but armor employed in the right place at the right time can win a war in the same way that a heavy cavalry charge into the flank or rear of an enemy line could win a battle.

Tanks are mobile threat incarnate, but they are useless when deployed against a prepared battle line. Even if they manage to break the line, they will suffer heavy losses and they always require a tremendous amount of material support. The best use of armor is to "Hit'em where they ain't" and then consolidate the area that it threatens.

There should be no smashing of armored fists into an enemy's face in a proper campaign. You smash an armored fist into his kidney or spine.

I hear you August and understand, i was talking more of what kind of emotions and thoughts armor and mechanized units raises in me personally.:)

Remember one wargame where our recon platoon was sitting in batallion hq as a reserve force. The enemy force had made a landing on the coast east side of Helsinki and we had done our part in locating them.

Then came the call that we are needed at some location.

Of to the APCs and we left in a colum, two motorbikes as scouts in front.

In one curve to the right, were we had to slow down, first APC gets hit, mine, RPG or both.
We get fire from the front and side the whole length of the colum.
The APCs get RPG hits marked, in the first one everyone marked down.

Simulation wests peeping everywhere.
Those that make it to the ditch hit tripwires and explosive coard in the bottom. :nope:

That was the enemy forces recon units ambush.
We never got ambushed by foot but did a lot of our own.
We really felt that when you go mechanized, factors come in that you cant control as much.

I know there are situations where tanks and other armored units play a role.
The first Gulf Wars pincer was an good exsample.
The last Lebanon War was the opposite.
I just see more of the latter than first exsample in the future for armor.

But you are aware of that a few of them were shot down over Iraq? Enemy aircraft are only one possible threat.;)

Did I derail that thread?:oops:

It is pretty fun to take to the sky in one in Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. Tearing up everything from infantry to guns to buildings to whole forests with your railgun is quite the experience. Until you're hit by flak and go down:nope:.

Edit: Wasn't this thread about some film?

Edit 2: Looking at reviews now, lots of good ratings. It's being called incredibly claustrophobic and realistic.

Not much good in it beside the action scenes. Cast and acting is horrendous.

This is a tricky one really.

Tanks
Pros:
Armour protection
Speed
Firepower
Cons:
Restricted visibility
Vulnerable in urban environments
Risk of entrapment

Inf
Pros:
Better visibility
Better mobility
Smaller target
Cons:
No or minimal armour
Low firepower (depending on target)
Low speed (dismounted)

If I were in the Iraqi war, I'd rather be in a tank than an infantryman, but if I were in the Fulda gap, I'd probably rather be an infantryman. If you're facing an enemy who cannot penetrate your tanks armour, then the tank is the safest place to be, but if he can and can do so easily, then you have to see him, lase him and nail him before he can do the same to you. It helps in tanks like the Abrams that there's two sets of eyes scanning the field, gunner and commander because all it would take is one T-90 or TOW launcher to spot you before you spot him and it's goodnight Irene.
Admittedly, in the Fulda gap as a poor bloody infantry, you'd be stuck in your foxhole in your NBC suit for twenty odd minutes while Ivan pounds the crap out of your position with arty, but then you'd get the armour roll in.
Of course, there is another problem with infantry in such situations...armour can pull back faster than dismounted infantry can, so unless you had some M113s behind a hill to fall back into, then you'd be overrun pretty damn quickly.
To be honest, both sides would have it bloody hard in an equal force war, particularly if the airspace is not secure. It's bad enough have to keep your eyes peeled for T-90s without have a Hind pop up from behind a forest and throw a missile at you, or a bloody Frogfoot strafe you. :damn:

About movie:

The Israelis are trying to defuse the toxic legacy of the Lebanon conflict with these "it was horrible but don't blame the average soldiers" - type movies. All while the powder keg known as Middle East is smoking again I'm afraid.

I have to say though, I've always been interested in the Six day war and the Yom Kippur war and think that they might make good movies in the right hands. The Lebanon thing is such a tricky subject that even the most gullible viewers will most likely see the propaganda side of this film.

About tanks vs. infantry:

I'd rather be in a tank since I've already done the ground pounding thing. A little variety never hurt. :)

Six Day war would make a good film as would Yom Kippur. Task Force is right, they could do with doing a decent Panzer film, Wittman being an SS member would probably not go down well though. Rommel is probably a top choice but has been done a lot, particularly focusing on his part in Valkyrie. Based upon a Wehrmacht unit, perhaps from Poland through to the fall of Germany, like a Band of Brothers but from the other side. Would be interesting, if done right.
Marseille would also make a good film story, he was quite the player and would probably love a film about himself. :haha::salute:

I've noticed over several threads now that you seem to have the idea that war movies are government productions. Do you realize how tin foilish that sounds?

I wouldn't mind seeing something on the largest armoured battle in history...Kursk...from either perspective would do.

http://www.airforcehollywood.af.mil/

I think it's mind-boggling how some are so naive that they think that movies somehow appear out of thin air and have no relation whatsoever to the society that surrounds them.

I'd love to see a Rommel Biopic focused on the North Africa Campaign.