Iraq-ressurection of heavy armor

I heard that many people thought that in future we can replace heavy equipment with lighter vehicles.Fortunatelly Iraq proved that heavy armor will decide about many future wars.

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...


www.nationaldefensemagazine.org...

[edit on 25-6-2004 by gattaca]

playing devils advocate, you can also find support for the opposite view... the following article describes the russian experience in grozny.

carlisle-www.army.mil...

-koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
playing devils advocate, you can also find support for the opposite view... the following article describes the russian experience in grozny.

carlisle-www.army.mil...

-koji K.

very bad and missed examlpe in my opinion.Russians entered to Grozny totally unprepared and without any plan.They just rolled in to the city and were ambushed by Chechens.They haven't any reinforcements or high-tech support.

why cant you have both light and heavy armored

you could be right, im not an expert. but the us army has been pushing to get the stryker deployed in iraq to replace the tanks in urban areas, and israel has expressed interest in it as well for urban ops. so i think even within the army there's some split on this.

also, the grozny article mentions basement fire as a major obstacle for tanks in cities. i'm wondering if this has been a problem in iraq or if it's never come up?

not saying i'm right- but i think it's difficult to make a generalization from just one field of battle, whether it be the grozny example or iraq. definately interesting stuff though.

koji K.

Originally posted by koji_K
you could be right, im not an expert. but the us army has been pushing to get the stryker deployed in iraq to replace the tanks in urban areas, and israel has expressed interest in it as well for urban ops. so i think even within the army there's some split on this.

also, the grozny article mentions basement fire as a major obstacle for tanks in cities. i'm wondering if this has been a problem in iraq or if it's never come up?

not saying i'm right- but i think it's difficult to make a generalization from just one field of battle, whether it be the grozny example or iraq. definately interesting stuff though.

koji K.

no,it's just no matter of good or bad example.Russians were just unprepared.They entered to the city because of political reasons.Pavel Graczov was a terrible leader and Chechens allowed russians to enter into a downtown and then just cut them ways to escape.It's just an example how stupid army leaders could be and how terrible russians were prepared for that war.

There are no basements in Iraq for basement fire to come from.

What the Army has figured out time and again is that you need both. you cant drive an M1 tank over old worn bridges. In Iraq, they tear up roads and sidewalks and just get the locals more and more pissed every time they see one on their street. you cannot traverse the main gun of a M1 high enough to cover the tops of tall buildings, however the Russians figured out that self-propelled artillery guns, when positioned at the lead and rear of a tank convoy, were effective against building-top atacks.
The tanks were also great for clearing routes. I was in a light skined scout hummer, and many of the roadside bombs that would have torn us apart had little or no effect on the tanks.

my unit is transitioning to the stryker just as soon as the rest of the regiment gets back from Iraq (my sqdrn made it back 2 days before they stoped the troop movements out of Iraq in april, but the rest of the regiment was sent back). Although I see the value in the stryker, I sure hope we will always have some tanks nearby.

ok, i think we're talking across each other here. you seem to be referring to combined-arms tactics in urban operations. i am talking about tanks in urban ops. obviously your way of looking at things is the "right" one if planning a battle, but i thought the thread was about the utlility of armor, not urban ops tactics.

but addressing your point about high-tech support- the tactics used against the russians in grozny would work equally well against US troops, regardless of differences in technology and training. according to FM 3-06.11, Combined Arms Ops in Urban Terrain, Appendix H:

b. No US Comparative Advantage.

(1) The historical data suggest that it is extremely difficult for modern forces to leverage their technological advantages against a determined adversary in an urban environment. To be sure, the US military is highly motivated, well trained and well equipped, but not for urban warfare per se.

(2) The city environment, with its high population density and multistory buildings, tends to negate the technological advantages, for example, close air support, mobility, communications, enjoyed by modern military forces. Some US military technology, designed for large scale war in the open areas of central Europe or the desert, is not well suited for urban combat. The US technological advantage, typically associated with long range, high-technology weapons platforms that use mass and mobility, is significantly reduced in urban environments.

(3) It is precisely for this reason that less sophisticated forces are drawn to cities. Urban battles in the recent past, such as Grozny and Mogadishu, have been characterized by conflict between modern combined arms forces and informally organized irregulars. The battle of Inchon was the last significant urban engagement in which US forces fought a remotely comparable force in an urban environment. Aware of our increasing unwillingness to take casualties or cause major collateral damage, and understanding our lack of comparative advantage in the urban environment, US adversaries are increasingly likely to engage our forces in cities.

www.adtdl.army.mil...

-koji K.

oh yeah, also, as regards tanks alone, this is from the same source (Appendix C), regarding armor limitations in cities:

b. Armored Vehicle Limitations. Armored vehicle limitations include:

(1) Crewmen in armored vehicles have poor all-round vision through their vision blocks; they are easily blinded by smoke or dust. Tanks cannot elevate or depress their main guns enough to engage targets very close to the vehicle or those high up in tall buildings.

(2) If isolated or unsupported by Infantry, armored vehicles are vulnerable to enemy hunter/killer teams firing light and medium antiarmor weapons. Because of the abundance of cover and concealment in urban terrain, armored vehicle gunners may not be able to easily identify enemy targets unless the commander exposes himself to fire by opening his hatch or Infantrymen directing the gunner to the target.

(3) Armored vehicles are noisy. Therefore, there is little chance of them arriving in an area undetected. Improvised barricades, narrow streets and alleyways, or large amounts of rubble can block armored vehicles.

(4) Due to the length of the tank main gun, the turret will not rotate if a solid object is encountered, for example, a wall, post, and so forth. Heavy fires from armored vehicles cause unwanted collateral damage or can destabilize basic structures.

(5) The main gun of an M1A2 can only elevate +20 degrees and depress -9 degrees. Examples of standoff distances for buildings where a HEAT round is used are:

Ground floor�2.5 meters from the target.

3d story�23 meters from the target.

18th story�132 meters from the target.

-koji K.

like i said why not make both! strykers in the front with humvees and a couple of tanks for fire support.

Well the abrams or even a king tiger being loud MIGHT and i said might hae that effect on the younger soldiers and make em scared and not fight because if you see a big-assed tank coming towards you, machingeguns, and main gun aimed at you, if you dont piss your pants on the spot, i envy you... you get it right

hey here's some lessons learned by the israeli army in the siege of Beirut:
1. Anti-air Vulcans are effective: Could reach an angle of +89 degrees so aiming at rooftops is no problem
2. You need a fast but still heavily armored vehicule
3. Preferably vehicules should only be used for transportation in the outskirts of the city ( because of the hunter/killer cells)
4. use of tanks is ineffective: collateral damge and the new ruins will provide shelters for the hunter/killer cells
5. same thing for artillery plus mortars can't even get through rooftops

I still think the future of the army should include both heavy tanks and light fast vehicles

Israelis use a modified T-55 with a pillbox mounted on top and they also have a version with two vulcan canons mounted on top. It's supposed to be very effective for suppresing infantry forces in urban warfare. You can see it on TV often when they report on israeli incursions in Gaza or whereever elese.

About Iraq, i think it proved the american FCS program as flaved, because the FCS can't operate indepedently in an envirement like Iraq, because it can't even survive an RPG atack, so it is kind of useless in such a situation. I think MBTs with proper infantry and some specialist support vehicles can do the job just fine.

Originally posted by koji_K
ok, i think we're talking across each other here. you seem to be referring to combined-arms tactics in urban operations. i am talking about tanks in urban ops. obviously your way of looking at things is the "right" one if planning a battle, but i thought the thread was about the utlility of armor, not urban ops tactics.
-koji K.

I agree with this point of view but when we are talkink about how important heavy armor will be on the future battlefield we cannot forget about other units.For example - when you will talk about how effective is navy now you just can't forget about air support etc...

Maybe I will say it in other words - last campaign proved that tanks are very important when you USE THEM PROPERLY on the battlefield ))



[edit on 26-6-2004 by gattaca]

Thank the goodness for helicopter gunships such as the Apache, Havoc and Black Hawks. They provide more fire power than a tank, more effective against infantry, more mobile, more adgile, faster, better range, and can hit more targets such as fighters (Air to Air heatseakers). Plus many of them can carry troops farther into a city.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Thank the goodness for helicopter gunships such as the Apache, Havoc and Black Hawks. They provide more fire power than a tank, more effective against infantry, more mobile, more adgile, faster, better range, and can hit more targets such as fighters (Air to Air heatseakers). Plus many of them can carry troops farther into a city.

Yeah right, maybe you forgot that a helicopter is the most fragile piece of weaponry: everyone can see it (noisy and hung in the air where everyone can see it) and ( because of stingers, SA-7.... being available in all black markets) everyone can shoot it.
Helicopters are only used in battles where the enemy has no AA weapons or is in disarray or retreating: kinda like the light cavalary in the past where it was only used to slaughter a retreating army.

And about the more effective against infantry part , hell the most anti- helicopter weapons is infantry: hard to spot especially in ruins, junglees... , mobile and packs quite of a punch against the helicopter's light armor

P.S: This lesson was learned the hard way : Soviets in Afghanistan, Somalia(although no guided weapons were used in this case)...

I agree both the day of the Heavy MBT and the use of attack helichopters directly over the battlefield are over. Why?

The Abrams was designed for massive armour battles in central europe. Its mission (defend and attack against numerically surperior Warsaw Pact forces dictated a heavy armour package. Also, it was prepositioned so that transport to the battlefield was reletivly easy. Now with the likelyhood of smaller regional conflict rather that all out WW, its heavyness become a severe liability. At best a C-5 can transport 2 with severe limitations on range and speed, not to mention the shortage of heavy airlift. Also, with the tendancy as mentioned above for urban warfare, unless we a persuing a scorched earth policy, all the infrastructure the heavy tanks cause will have to be fixed.

Attack helichopters will still have a role, but it may evolve into a standoff nature. Notice the Marine AH-1's primarily were used in a stadoff role in GW II. This protected them from ground fire.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Thank the goodness for helicopter gunships such as the Apache, Havoc and Black Hawks. They provide more fire power than a tank, more effective against infantry, more mobile, more adgile, faster, better range, and can hit more targets such as fighters (Air to Air heatseakers). Plus many of them can carry troops farther into a city.

Plus they make very nice targets for anyone with a rifle or stinger

Ok they used alot of heavy armor, but thats just the marketing department having a go. If Iraq had a stockpile of apache helicopters it would have been different. They need to make others think they still need to buy these heavy tanks.
Funny how every one looked at the oil sector at the beginning of this, forgetting it takes steel and oil to make things go bang!