literally what is the point of infantry when every vehicle has three of these?
There really is no point of infantry
However militaries couldn't do fancy marching parades without infantry, so foot sloggers will stay.
And will cost trillions in health care when 50,000 of them are killed/injured pointlessly.
>>28358367
>>28358206
Jesus Christ
>has absolutely no idea how combined arms combat maneuvers work
>has no idea how crew served weapons or MGS work
>has no idea that MAT teams are a thing
>doesnt know what infantry screening is
Great thread
If everything was drone controlled would we really need people at all? Just have robots fight your wars.
>>28358206
can't kick down a door and neutralize hostiles with a vehicle
>inb4 just blow that motherfucker up
cant be killing civilians youll fagents, then u will look like a tyrant and everyone will want to kill u
>>28358418
Excessive molotovs: the attack
There must've been at least 60 thrown for one stupid car
>>28358421
That just costs money. Economic sanctions, embargos, and blockades are FAR more effective and cheaper, with the same end result.
Bloodshed is the currency of war. Husbands, sons, brothers, and fathers must be cut down en masse until one side decides its had enough.
>>28358402
a: There hasn't been a real war for decades
b: Mass artillery will kill infantry in their millions
c: Theres a reason everyone builds so many fking armored APC's
d: Only the US is stuck in their delusion of fielding a mostly light infantry force, then relying on airstrikes to not lose wars.
>>28358418
>those first few throws that don't go anywhere fucking near the thing
who let that guy become a terrorist?
>>28358418
GLA angry mob
Who are those guys, the vehicle looks like Turkish Cobra so possibly Kurds?
If it was Islamist's they would probably send one guy with a bomb vest and not make a monkey show out of it.
>>28358476
Properly train and lead light infantry can be devastating. Excluding total air superiority which no one can have against US. Look at what ISIS has accomplished and they are little more than light infantry.
>>28358580
Thats literally untrue
ISIS has plenty of tanks/APC's/artillery
>>28358580
And any mob of untrained technicals with MGs completely demolishes infantry.
Infantry is dead.
>>28358418
>that dumbass at 0:46 that drops his molotov at his own feet
>>28358768
Except in cities, jungles, mountains, and forests.
But you're right that mechanization is a giant op-tempo advantage over purely foot mobile infantry.
literally what is the point of OP when OPs mom could have just gotten a dog if she wanted an annoying yapping thing to waste her money, destroy her furniture and generally disappoint her?
>>28358685
All used for supporting the advancing infantry. You've clearly never been to military and do not have to ability to grasp strategic thinking..
Basics of war haven't really changed in milleniums and that's why infantry is still useful. If you do not understand why infantry is still the backbone of almost all major military operations you're an idiot..
Even in the future while Air superiority is gained by drones it is the living and breathing boots on the ground that take up strategic and tactical locations. Armor can't go everywhere. APCs can't take up positions on the roof tops.. There are always a need for an infantryman..
>>28358833
You'd want vehicles anywhere
Vehicles are universally supeiror to infantry
It's just that infantry is cheaper(initially), easier to supply, and can go in slightly more places than vehicles.
>>28358206
>>28358476
>>28358768
holy fuck I hope you get AIDS
>>28358881
>and can go in slightly more places than vehicles.
Yeah. And those places are where the humans are. Humans living in human-accessible human-shaped environments, imagine that.
>>28358904
?
If you are talking urban areas, those are the places you most especially want tanks/armor.
>>28358833
And you can have a single man carry a machinegun and take out hundreds of infantry without an issue.
Machineguns win wars, not infantry.
>>28358946
And a single man flanking you're machine gun can easily take it out.. Or one man with a RPG or a sniper or a single lucky shot can take out your machinegunner. What's you're point?
>>28358946
Are you retarded
Infantry wins wars
Because they fix the opposing force
Infantry kill remarkably few combatants in modern warfare
And then artillery kills the fixed force.
lrn2fixingforce
>>28358915
In urban areas the tank cannot maneuver as well as on a open ground making it more easy to destroy if you don't care about collateral damage which towelheads rarely seem to do.. US troops are lucky that sandpeople don't have real anti-tank missiles instead of those obsolete RPG-7s
>>28359048
How can you believe its easier to destroy a tank than to kill an infantryman/squad?
When the HE & shrapnel are flying, you want a few inchs of steel to protect you.
>>28359274
>How can you believe its easier to destroy a tank than to kill an infantryman/squad?
I base my believes on common sense, logic and military training instead of video games.
Infantry don't need to do the killing, they need to fix the enemy force for something else to kill it.
ITT: people with military experience and training attempt to explain to armchair generals why the infantry will always exist.
>>28359449
>i'm a retard that thinks the harder something is to kill the less survivable it is
fix'd
>>28359449
K m8, which is why it was infantry on foot that led the charge to baghdad in 2003, right?
>>28358549
Bahrain
Shia attackers
>>28359541
that's why the tanks cleared out Fallujah the first time with a minimal amount of infantry support, right?
>>28359584
That's why there was never a second battle of Fallujah, right?
>>28359541
Oh God.. How can I explain this in a way you'll understand.. Armor lead the assault in and with the support of infantry. When you're expecting heavy resistance it's nice to have something that can take the beating while infantry flanks the enemy and seizes structures and points the armor cannot go or get into..
Armor alone cannot win wars or even battles.. Kursk was probably the only case I can think of and even there infantry and artillery where used..
Why Kursk and such battles of the eastern front where primarily tank battles? Because of the terrain. In the vast plains of eastern Europe the tank is the perfect weapon because of it's firepower and mobility..
I don't know how to explain this to you since I am not an expert in armored tactics nor do I poses more than a rudimentary basics of strategy..
>>28358946
A MACHINE-GUN WITHOUT A MARINE BEHIND THE TRIGGER IS NOTHING BUT A METAL PIPE, SOLDIER
NO WAR HAS EVER BEEN WON BY METAL PIPES AND WITH GOD AS MY WITNESS NO WAR EVER SHALL BE
>>28354341
OP you shitposting retard. At least wait for your other thread to die.
Move along. Nothing to see here. Just shitposting
>>28359680
The infantry fill in because they are cheaper/slightly more flexible
If the tank was cheaper than infantry then there would be no infantry at all.
found the butt hurt grunts
>>28359803
Tanks can't go everywhere. Infantry cans. When the firts T-888 -series hits the markets then it's finally bye bye for infantry but until then they ain't leaving the battlefield.
