Play Conflict of Nations for FREE on PC, Android or iOS: 💥con.onelink.me/kZW6/olvfw37d Receive an Amazing New Player Pack, only available for the next 30 days

Infantry just aren’t as helpless before tanks as they used to be… forcing armor to be more timid.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="372">6:12</a> "Operation YourAnus" Man, that saved my day! LOL

In WWII, France was indeed focused on the Low Countries and was arguably equivalent to the Germans in equipment. What did them in was poor comms; they couldn't react to German attacks in time; the Germans simply ran rings around them.

Good to see the widespread use of howitzer dispersed land mines. They will be fun suprises for farmers and kids for generations.

We will have a serious talk with our subtitler! 🙂

🤣🤣Subtitles got me with "YourAnus" at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="372">06:12</a>🤣🤣

Same question was asked in regards to Syria. The answer was that anti-tank missiles were chewing up the armored vehicles at a distance and tanks were relegated to being essentially direct-fire artillery. The balance has shifted back to the infantry again, using storm-trooper tactics combined with pinpoint artillery support.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">6:11</a> with CC enabled: "Later in the war but also a year earlier in 1942 during Operation YourAnus"

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> bruh the subtitles 💀

Operation Uranus may have been executed much cleaner had both sides taken toilet paper supply lines seriously.

I think its also pertinent to point out that much of WWII was not made up of armoured spearheads, sweeping over the country. There were many phases and theatres where the fighting resembled a WWI slogging match. For example Overlord was stuck in the Bocage for 2 months before the Allies could mount a breakout and several British and Canadian armoured thrusts around Caen rapidly bogged down. In Italy the campaign was mostly a slow grind that put paid to any ideas of a 'soft underbelly' ripe for attack. People remember the Blitzkrieg war in 1940 and 41 but tend to forget the many instances when an older, more industrial, positional warfare predominated.

I love how the auto subtitles for Uranus is YourAnus lol <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a>

Artillery, air strikes, and infantry wielded anti tank weapons have gotten much more accurate but tanks have not gotten any faster. Thats it. When a revolution in firepower is not matched by a revolution in mobility, warfare tilts to favor the defender. Firepower in WW2 was not much more effective or accurate than 8n WW1 but tanks and planes were much more mobile. Hence the aggressive fast moving front lines.

Subtitles off: Operation Uranus 😴 Subtitles on: Operation *YourAnus* 😮

Automated subtitles translating Operation Uranus in Operation YourAnus. Well played Google, well played!

I like how the subtitles in <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> tell us about "Operation YourAnus" 😂

Three reasons why we didn't see a WWll style large tank battle in Ukraine. 1: Portable anti-tank weapons are very effective. 2: Most, if not all, Russian armor vehicles and tanks got ambushed and destroyed. 3: There is no cohesive battlefield strategy from Russian armed leadership. Throwing tanks in the field will yield nothing.

Short Answer: WWII was over 80 years ago. It doesn't even come down to having infantry carried anti-tank weapons or mines; before one can even begin, you have to contend with the combo of advanced intelligence gathering and precision long-range attacks. It was easier to sneak an army around back then since your intelligence relied on the recon of spies and planes as well as intercepted comms. Modern-day armies don't have the luxury. Mass too many too close, and those logistical hubs become targets before an assault can even begin, so your only option is to have them spread out and then coalesce faster than your enemy can respond and that requires intensive communication and coordination and that's harder with a strict top-down structure. Then you have to contend with javelins and the like.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="373">6:13</a> "during Operation Uranus" I couldn't stop laughing at this point, while I was reading the captions provided by KZfaq 😆

Tanks are at the point that battleships were in 1945, everybody still had them, they were still useful and powerful, but the age where they ruled the battle is over, supplanted by new technologies and tactics. Though the battleship was heavily armed and couldn't be matched in direct combat, the carrier could engage a battleship from way out of range, making it relatively invincible to just naval guns. The tank, was first used to dislodge infantry from its strong points, or outright bypass them, and then used in combination with infantry for extra defense on the tank and extra offense support on the infantry. Now a single infantryman with a good position and a cheap weapon (compared to the tank) can wipe out a whole column with little fear of retaliation, and on a strategic level, the loss of simply infantry if they do hit back successfully. And then there's drones. Tanks have no hope if a tiny civilian drone can direct accurate artillery on them before they're even on the front Times are changing, new toys in the field, and we all know what happens when armies have lots of new toys and bored soldiers and a sad low morale low recruitment peacetime army to whip into shape. JUST LIKE NOW !

I loved that split second pause after "Uranus" letting me fill in the joke

Bro the subtitles at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="372">6:12</a> 💀

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> Auto-captions: "Operation YourAnus"

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="377">6:17</a>.. love it that the automatic subtitle says 'Operation YourAnus'

Because we have the equivalent of the machine gun that neutralized cavalry in WW1. They are called Man portable guided missiles. Also neither side really has the logistical tail to keep a tank column moving.

For the same reason we no longer see infantry advancing in dense firing lines. That kind of mass makes sense when weapons are limited in range/accuracy/rate, but as weaponry improves in those areas, massed attacks become less effective. A platoon of modern MBTs hull-down in prepared positions can demolish 10x their number advancing across an open field. Throw in modern ATGMs and you're looking at slaughter.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="369">6:09</a> heh, the captions read Operation YourAnus

Biggest point not covered imo: Tanks have never been a silver bullet capable of operating without support. It is a myth that German success early in WWII came because they had the foresight to emphasize tank warfare and their enemies did not. Combined arms was and still is the name of the game. French, Soviet and (initially) even British and American armored units contained higher concentrations of tanks than their German counterparts in WWII. What the Germans actually had that their opponents lacked were self-contained all-arms units that included motorized infantry, self-propelled artillery, engineering units, and enough radios to efficiently co-ordinate all of these assets plus their air support. Plus an army full of soldiers willing to and capable of taking the individual initiative necessary to keep an offensive moving forward once a breakthrough was made in this complex environment. The effect was kind of like playing a game of rock-paper-scissors where the rules say your opponent either always needs to go first or else can only ever select rock. They just always mysteriously seemed to have the right asset at the right place and time to counter their opponents who just had tons of unsupported and uncoordinated tanks which could be picked apart relatively easily. Now fast forward to the Ukraine war. Russia had tons of vehicles and firepower and even air support assets, but almost nonexistent co-ordinatoon and logistics. So even out-numbered and out-gunned (unlike binkov I don't count mobilized troops training and months away from battle as combat power available right now), Ukraine was able to exploit Russia's inability to co-ordinate or supply its forces first to stop the Russians, then in some cases to even push them back (though at significant cost due to the disparity in numbers and tech). And again look at Karkhiv. The Ukrainians were short on armor (though they did have some), but they had co-ordination, co-operation, and logistics. In short when they made a breakthrough they had all the pieces in place to support it. Finally, I'd like to point out that it wasn't just a lucky co-incidence that coalition troops like the US, Britain, and France always seemed to somehow fight with local numerical superiority during the Gulf War. This occurred specifically because they were better trained, better led, and had better situational awareness, that led to their being able to decide when and how they would engage (and they naturally usually made sure they did so when they had the advantage). Also, while local numerical superiority was obviously a useful advantage for them, it was not a prerequisite. At one point 2nd ACR (IE a single US Armored Cavalry Regiment) moved forward so fast it found itself caught between 2 Iraqi divisions, and it folded both of them up like they were cheap lawn furniture. Again, the quality and motivation of your personnel matters and the ability to bring the power of all of your combat arms to bear on your opponent at the time and place they are needed is critical (and obviously closely related to the quality and motivation of your personel) This, to me explains what we have seen in Ukraine. Are the Ukrainians the absolute best troops in the world? In spite of the nearly boundless respect I now have for them, no. But they are some of the best motivated troops in the world and likely the best troops in the world relative to the amount of time and money that can be invested in their training before they are sent out to fight. Still, they may lack the equipment necessary for a major combined arms offensive on a scale like WWII or 1991. Russia had the raw numbers men and weapons to do this back in Feb 2022 , but not the doctrine or logistics, and the average quality of their soldiers was also arguably too low even when they relied primarily on contract troops and their pre-war training cadres were still intact. Combined arms is hard (especially if you want to co-ordinate with air assets in a meaningful way). It requires lots of expensive, complex training that isn't always exciting to watch, and even experienced troops sometimes screw it up. As a result Russian units tended to avoid it. Plus the type of individual initiative required to make it work is not emphasized by Russian doctrine. This means that we have likely already seen Russia's best attempt at this last year (and that 40 mile long convoy to Kiev that just sat out on the roads for days getting sniped at by the Ukrainians was the result).

Before you had to run up to a tank with a mine to kill it or have a heavy truck drawn anti tank gut weighting 40-100ish kgs. Then you got Panzerfausts, Bazookas, Piats and Panzerschrecks to fight tanks further away from covered positions. Now you have dedicated anti tank missles that are easy to transport, easy to setup and easy to fire at a tank with a high chance to knockout or destroy the tank. Please also dont forget that airpower while impressive was still in its boots by the time ww2 kicked off compared to what we have nowadays. The doctrine of crushing the enemy with airpower alone as the us use it is a prime example while tanks cant move around and do what it wants anymore. Hell the last thing was true even at 1944 where allied bombers forces german tanks divisions to only move at night or get bombed off the streets.

Subtitles: Operation YourAnus

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="367">6:07</a> Lol at the captions here!

The very same reason why Napoleanic-era mass infantry offensives failed during WW1: weapons technology has advanced exponentially, even entire military doctrines are rendered obsolete.

Russia did send a lot of tanks forward earlier on in the war. Problem was their turrets kept flying off.

The ability for infantry to fight back against a tank I think it's the biggest game changer.

There was no element of surprise on September 1939, when Germany invaded Poland. Poland had mobilised its troops in the spring of 1939 and moved them to the border. It expected war to break out and to be won swiftly since, both the UK and France had promised to invade Germany from the west, if a war broke out with Poland. However, Poland was betrayed by its allies, since the French merely started a symbolic attack in the Saarland and halted the advance after a few kilometers.

Brody: Biggest tank battle. Kursk: Big battle with the most tanks present.

Are we going to ignore the english subtitles at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="368">6:08</a>?

The subtiltes at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">6:11</a>

OML the auto subtitles changed operation "Uranus" into operation "YourAnus" I CAN'T

Please remember that the German incursion into Poland was largely driven by horse carts and bicycles. The machine guns and a few tanks destroyed the polish heavy horse cavalry. The German Airforce was superior in number and tech to Polish forces that was partially avenged by Polish military "defecting" to the Allies in England

They tried something like that. It failed spectacularly. One time they drove a whole brigade into minefields.

Want the answer but don't wanna watch? Portable anti-tank weaponry.

The biggest reason that Russia never had a large tank offensive is that its logistics suck. They sucked at the start of the war and have gotten worse since.

The popular belief is in WW2 that all the mechanized German division where tanks and half track(or other transport) German propaganda made sure of that, a lot of it was not armoured, even relying heavily on horses for logistics. The Blitzkrieg tactic is just fast, violent and coordinated attacks throwing all your troops at specific targets and objectives and keep going creating havoc in enemy logistic and supply lines.

Part of the problem with tanks, is mass amounts of them aren't easy to hide from satellites. If you see the enemy massing tanks, you also know where you need to mass your anti-armor units. You can easily tell where the enemy is planning on making a push.

While I don’t always agree with Binkov’s conclusions and assertions, they are generally logical and have a solid factual basis. Binkov’s comment section on the other hand is generally an astonishing collection of copium huffers and mouth breathers who neither understand the topic at hand or are just completely delusional.

Turn on subtitles at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="369">6:09</a>

Short answer: Massively Unusual Disabilities - M.U.D.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="415">6:55</a> Golan hights and flat terrain? Man, they even have ski resorts up there, yes with snow in the Middle East! This is the opposite of flat terrain.

The captions <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="372">6:12</a> are excellent 😂

1. Mud. 2. Risk of getting too far away from your supply lines. German failure in Russia was largely the result of supply line problems.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">6:11</a> Operation YourAnus (automatic subtitles) I think it should be Uranus

Tell me more about operation “youranus” 😂

The tank isn’t dead. Combined arms warfare just isn’t taken seriously

"Operation Youranus." Very funny.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">6:11</a> maybe I'm childish, but I chuckled there.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="368">6:08</a> Subtitles should last forever

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="372">6:12</a> beautiful alternate spelling for operation Uranus in the captions [cc]! Cracked me up!😂

hahahaha <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="372">6:12</a> "Operation YourAnus" hahahaha even said it in the subtitles written like that too.

We all know minor nations who get invaded during the first year of WWIII games benefit more on Grand Battleplan Doctrine. Russia on the other hand is still on their level 2 in Mass Assault Doctrine so their bonuses just arent there yet.

Binkov: Operation Uranus Subtitles: Operation YourAnus Well quite literally what happend to German forces in Stalingrad

In World War One, troop concentrations were rendered suicidal by the advances in artillery and machine guns. Today, sensors and PGMs make those same concentrations suicide. As such, ground forces must operate heavily dispersed and have sufficient organic mobility to enable concentrations for defensive or offensive operations. Alternatively, firepower of smaller units and subunits needs to be dramatically increased to enable it to punch well above its weight on the defensive.

Cuz theres 1938483 ways to easily and very cheaply destroy a very expensive tank.

Little known fact: mass tank battles largely did not happen in WW2 either.

Ukraine's recent but relatively much smaller attempt proves why.

losses are normal in war, the last real war was fought in a place called vietnam, where the Americans lost 3700 planes and 5600 helicopters, against north vietnam.

lolol the auto-cc stated Operation YourAnus

So long story short: massed armored warfare is hard to pull off and Russians are deficient in almost every aspect of operational art, so there's no way they could have done it. The much more interesting question now is whether Ukraine can do substantially better. We will see when the ground firms up there.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">06:11</a> - subtitles on in English. You're welcome.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">6:11</a> excuse me, what operation?

Subtitles are really really great! Operation "YourAnus"!

Ukraine didn't have enough tanks for mass tank offensives and Russia wasted theirs in that 50km traffic jam to Kiev the first weeks of the war. Oh and they didn't have trucks provided by the US this time, so their logistics ended up being trash.

Subtitles at <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> 😳😳

The answer is man portable AT weapons before WWII infantry was absolutely fucked if they came across a tank on their own now both sides can readily deploy infantry portable anti tank missiles

Something that is frequently overlooked is the whole logistics quandary for Russia. Russia did not spend money on it's military logistics capability, The "unsexy" concept of spare parts, repair/recovery and maintenance was a very low priority. Add on top of that the lack of motorized supply (Off road trucks etc.) capable of keeping up with an armored thrust to keep the ammo, fuel and food coming is a key factor. Not to mention mobile hospitals to alleviate casualties taken. Most people don't think about that kind of stuff when considering military power. Logistics is king when the shooting starts.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="371">6:11</a> the subtitle really wrote Operation YourAnus?

The Blitzkrieg is no longer possible because 1) 1940s Germany had 20 years to reverse engineer WW1 British Tanks (which were just armored cars), and nobody thought anyone wanted to go trhough WW1 again, (element of surprise) 2) Modern Roads, Bridges, & Fuel (is expensive) The Heaviest Tank in WW2 was Germany's Tiger 2 (78 tons) and it was not successful outside of Europe. Yes Tiger 2 can hit hard and survive anything, but can't go to where the battles are, just stuck in the mud. Light Tanks exist for a reason. 3) Finland (who just joined NATO) has spent the last decade becoming NATO ready, & NATO requirements are basically a checklist to defend against invasion, and every NATO ally knows what their wartime economy will look like, so the invader can't threaten a NATO member with anything

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> OPERATION URANUS - Closed Caption says YourAnus ...🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> That's what my morning bathroom time is called

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> - Stalin was a real bad ass in naming his operations😂

Thanks for not hosting the painting scam sponsor. We appreciate it.

I do get the picture that the Blitzkrieg style mass armoured offensive is actually more of a scalpel cut than the sledgehammer operation it can sound like. It's more about leveraging assets and capabilities already present than indeed just swinging a wall of armour one way.

Russia tried their tank-attack at failed.. They tried at Kiev and got stuck in their own traffic jam, but more iimportantly.... In an attempt to break the stalemate in Vuhledar, they sent in and lost 130 armored vehicles. Tanks and IFVs... They were all smoked by javelins, artillery and mines. So I guess... Combined arms is the way forward.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> operation my what?

Because infantry have more portable anti-tank weapons?

Why isnt anyone talking about operation youranus - play the subtitles

Because neither side has sufficient armor numbers and there’s more counters to armor than there was in the Second World War.

Integrated warfare doesn't work like the old wars. Troops don't clash on the battlefield or tanks. Enemy is destroyed before they see each other often many miles apart.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="370">6:10</a> excuse me, what operation?

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="368">06:08</a> while turning on english subtitles - thank me later^^

Thank you - I think there's a tendency for 'experts' to say the tank is not dead it's just because a failure of combined arms that they haven't been successful. I think you have shown why it's not as simple as that. It has to do with detection ranges and surveillance that disadvantages the tank vs simple infantrymen. I don't think anyone with a rifle is going to be able to snipe someone with an ATGM from 7-10 kilometers away. And you already explained why supporting tanks with air support is not as easy as it once was.

Lol, even video games got this right. Your biggest threat isn’t another tank, its the infantry man hiding in a bush with a guided missle launcher. Russians need to play battlefield.

"Hmm I wonder how Blinkov's comment section is doing" *Checks comment section* "Yep, the usual CoD lobby that I like to see."

One of the best analyses I’ve heard so far. Very good!

Operation YourAnus in the subtitles 😅😂

it would be important to point out that the first time blitzkreig failed in ww2, as it foreshadowed a change in tank warefare would be the siege of Tobruk, where Australian infantry tactics made unsupported armoured thrusts obsolete

Why do i read operation YourAnous in the subtitles

Video: operation Uranus. Subtitles: operation YourAnus😂

It's ,mostly urban street fighting, not 3rd World desert combat. The muddy ground and damaged infrastructure can't support 70ton tanks.