I can't watch that video at work, but I assume related to this:

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012...behind-th.html

Time has proven over and over again that infantry without tanks die. Every once and a while somebody gets it into their heads that tanks are obsolete, and you can make do without. Or you can replace a tank with something like LAV-MGS (ugh)

And then either (ideally) simulations or (far too frequently) real life experience demonstrates, once again, that you absolutely positively must have access to tanks if you want to win.

However, since the fall of the Soviet Union, the threat of full-up tank armies blitzkrieging their way across Europe has diminished quite a bit. We're not going to see battles that result in hundreds of tanks a day being destroyed, probably ever again (knock wood).

That being the case, the ideal ratio for a modern standing army is probably on the order of 3:1 infantry to armoured. So for every three deployable infantry battalions, you want a tank battalion - which really works out to "Every infantry battalion should deploy with a tank company in support, if they are going into a real fight".

The exact force package you send will vary according to the threat, but having that ability is about right.

Have a few extras for spares (tanks are very maintenance intensive and consume parts like crazy) and some strategic reserve, and you are good to go.

Under that metric, Canada is a little bit light on the tank front - but we have the best tanks in the world at least. The US has WAY more tanks than it needs. And the Abrams doesn't suck, especially the newer upgraded ones. That option to defer the upgrade on tanks that aren't being used and save $3B seems like a no-brainer to me.

DG