Who is more vulnerable on the battlefield- infantry or tanks?

Question

Infantry are largely unprotected from hostility (as I understand it- feel free to correct me) and, even if hiding behind/ in cover, there's always the chance of a stray grenade or bullet- surely in a built-up environment they're still overlooked by windows and alleyways?

HOWEVER I would think that infantry is far more flexible- they can disappear, hide, split up, regroup etc etc.

A tank, on the other hand, is protected from nearly all small arms fire and, as far as I understand, has nothing to fear from gunfire or even smaller explosives. However, a tank is less likely to be able to hide or run away, and is extremely vulnerable to air attack.

Have I got this right? I'd appreciate some input. Thanks

Answer 1

Depends entirely on the battlefield situation; the enemy's capability and the terrain. Infantry is more flexible and less susceptible to air attack, but more vulnerable against small arms fire. Armour is very much at risk from infantry with effective anti-armour capability, arguably more so than they are against enemy armour of an equal force due to the long ranges they can be engaged from and the small detectibility of a dug in anti-armour team. Likewise, infantry are massively vulnerable to armour if caught without the necessary protection. IEDs pose a threat to dismounted infantry and armour alike, but cause the most damage to light vehicles.
In Iraq, the most vulnerable is theoretically the tank due to the restrictions on movement (predictibility of routes etc) and the '3D' enviroment that OBUA operations entail.

Answer 2

you are largely right. as to who is more vulnerable... it depends on the battlefield as such. e.g. in a built up area the tanks cant hide anywhere but are well protected against small arms, and in a wide open area the infantry can hide under camo nets and prove a harder target for the air units.

its a battlefield orientated question

Answer 3

tanks are less vulnerable and while theyre not as maneuverable as foot sloggers they can get away faster (some tanks can go up to 45mph and others can go as fast as 80 - 90mph when the engine governor has been removed or disabled a lot depends on what weapons are being deployed as well, for instance if somebody has just fired a Topol-M at the battlefield tanks and infantry are crossing, the question of vulnerability is suddenly rendered academic!!

Answer 4

what the military need is remote controlled heavy tanks that are thin metal lookalikes full of napalm, cluster bombs and high explosives mingled with depleted uranium., when an IED is thrown or detonated allow the tank to detonate and wipe out every thing in the surrounding area. Or, send a cruise missile to Syria or Iran to show the triangle of evil that the west can be as evil as them.

Answer 5

It's like asking how long is a piece of string.

It all depends an what you are asking of the unit and the terrain you are asking to do it on

Falklands- Good for infantry bad for armour

Iraq - Other way round

Answer 6

A tanky says the infantry an infrantryman says a tanky
A sensible civilian says thank God i'm not there

Answer 7

your right infantry has more advantages over the tank.
yes the tank is vulnerable to air attack but their biggest problem now are the IED'S

Answer 8

id say infantry because becuase the only protection they have is a vest while tanks have all around armor, scare factor and a 120mm gun

Answer 9

Any weapon can kill a man, it takes some decent firepower to take out a tank.