Armored warfare

Not sure what those people up there are planning, but I'm pretty sure they've got it mixed up and wrong.. What are they thinking, using armoured vehicles for slow tactical strikes? Slowly observing and moving.. What a mistake. Ah well, guess those tactical geniuses did not read enough on the theory, nor do they have alot of common sense.

Well, common sense tells you that you have a loud, noisy and prominent piece of technology that is able to move rapidly. So..? You would use it to attack agressively and swiftly. That is how traditional calvary charges are carried out. Through speed and instant action, leaving enemy troops with no time to reorganise or even have the opportunity to start an attack.

Therefore, the natural style of attacking with armoured vehicles, is blitzkreig. When fighting in closed spaces, divide up and move rapidly through several open paths, to reach the objective and then concentrate fire and take down that particular point rapidly. It is ideal if that objective is some important choke point with which the enemy got to move through that particular point. Penetrate swiftly through enemy defenses. Rush. In panicky situations, the enemy would be left breathless and unable to think clearly about how to counterattack. Moving swiftly means you are not sitting duck to anti-tank attacks.

Tanks are vulnerable to rocket propelled grenades, and thus when encountering one, you can't just rush straight at it. Lousy enemy would of course panic and run, but what about more proficient ones? They would keep their cool and reason out that if you're going to die no matter how since the tank is rushing your location and can shoot you down faster than you can run, why dont you just blast the tank anyway. It is coming at you in a straight line. Just aim and shoot. Aim for in front of the tank. Then blast consecutive shots. Complete annihilation. The tank should instead rush in a slightly zig-zag pattern.

Thus, I am more than baffled to find people practicing slow moving patterns, the kind where you observe and move, observe and move. Understood that we are trying to be wary of airstrike, but rapid movement is likely to achieve more in shorter time, besides the casualty rate would probably be as high anyway, even in slow tactical movement.

Ah well, all these is ultimately pointless anyway..