Combined Arms Breach

This visualization was developed for the Maneuver Center of Excellence and is closely based upon the National Training Center Breach and Assault exercise executed circa 1990. This visualization demonstrates viable TTPs as discussed in ATTP 3-90-4 for the conduct of the combined arms breach against a hypothetical enemy.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A
Approved for public release; Distribution Unlimited

[afaultytoaster]

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

[tanit]

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!

[bn]

This video was a pleasure to watch. Great work again.

[xurxinhoo]

Just awesome!
A work of art!
These kind of explanations really help to envision Tactics!

Thank you so much for sharing this lesson.

[VT-mwzb]

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.

[SomeonessChannel]

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.

[quickzilver]

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!

[DrummerKenz]

I love when H. John Benjamin teaches me military strategy.

[ThePRCommander]

This learning video is of top quality.

[martaiks]

Thank You for this video and your chanel great job!!!! Please do more!!!

[LewisMadden-se]

Be interesting to see how this has changed in presence of drones.

[Mike]

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.

[filterdecay]

putin in bed at 3am watching this video.

[Centermass]

As an Atropia vet, this really triggers my PTSD.

[smokeypuppy]

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

[Dimapur]

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.

[thespartanmk]

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.

[antikoerper]

Amazing video, respect and thanks from your humble NATO ally - Bulgaria

[Jeffery]

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.

[SaturnVII]

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.