[meenie]

The high speed, mobile, army is very hard to beat in a pitched battle against another force where the targets are plentiful. The Rommel and Patton model of armored warfare is incompatible with urban warfare. In urban warfare, the GI with the hand grenade and individual weapon with the support of an occasionable mortar round is the best you can do.

[Poodlebrain]

Not true, infantry supported by armor is more effective in urban combat than infantry without armor support. The armor provides much more concentrated firepower for pinning opponents and allowing the dismounted infantry to maneuver. As well as providing covering fire, the tank is also capable of dispensing smoke to provide concealment for the maneuvering infantry.

I would gladly trade the effect of a mortar round for the effect of a tank main gun round in urban combat. The plentiful cover available is usually proof against the shrapnel from mortar rounds, but not so from the blast effects of direct fire from a tank's main gun.

An infantry company supported by a tank platoon is a formidable force in urban terrain. The tanks are more vulnerable to close range attacks, but the infantry and its fighting vehicles should be able to limit any attacks to frontal attacks which are least prone to success.