An article about RPGs and the M1

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Horsesoldier RE:An article about RPGs and the M1 6/18/2004 5:47:50 PM

It's an okay article. I think he still overstates some things, even while trying to down play them, and I certainly don't know that RPG strike information is hard to come by online. I think he also omits the third asset a tank has besides firepower and mobility (which he labels speed) -- armor. There is much to be said for using tanks in MOUT operations, so long as they are used intelligently and in an integrated fashion.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:An article about RPGs and the M1 6/18/2004 11:18:40 PM

I think this guy should read "Thunder Run" by David Zucchino and then rethink his column. First, given the intensity levels of the urban combat from the fall of Baghdad onwards the loss of less than 10 armored vehicles to enemy action is pretty damn good. Especially compare that to Russian performance in Grozny. Second, use properly, based on the experience taking Baghdad last year, it would appear that combined arms involving heavy armor and mech infantry can be very effective in an urban setting. But it requires appropriate combined arms tactics.

Quote Reply

mike_golf An old dog can learn new tricks 6/19/2004 12:12:18 AM

Before the fall of Baghdad in 2003 I would have been the first person to agree with many of the comments in this article. Baghdad was a serious paradigm shift. Heavy armor and mechanized infantry can go into an urban environment and take on light infantry, and come out on top. 2nd Bde, 3ID demonstrated that, with appropriate tactics, modern armored formations can fight, survive and win in urban environments. I'm willing to admit the paradigm shift, anyone else?

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:An old dog can learn new tricks 6/19/2004 1:10:54 AM

Something else to consider is that cities have increasingly been built for rapid movement by automobiles, large trucks, etc. There may be portions of Baghdad, or any other city, which are really restrictive in regards to the mobility of tanks, but urban geography in the last 60 years has, I think, tended towards becoming much more permissive to mechanized operations. Still calls for combined arms and the ability to put boots on the ground, but it just isn't the same as the various urban slugging matches in WW2, Hue City, etc.

Quote Reply

Adamantine RE:An old dog can learn new tricks 6/19/2004 3:10:44 AM

If a RPG-7 can occasionally get a lucky shot and incapacitate some unlucky M1, Humvee and FCS and Bradly would be far more vulnerable. The experience in Baghdad underscore thee need for MORE armour for a tank, especially the TOP and the side. In fact the REAL experience of Baghdad point to the fact the israelis is right, ARMOUR is more important than maximum speed. In an urban area M1 or some future 70ton plus tank would be FAR more survivable than FCS or Bradley. Forget about the LAV. As to Humvee, its a easily recognise target and no matter how well its is amour with cermaic plate, its no match for RPG. driving a good civilian SUV or toyota pickup will increase your survivability as it is not easy to differentiate who is in the civilian SUV or truck or car. So the best combo is civilian auto with heavy tank (above 60ton) in operation where you are likely to face ambush and where your infantry cannot suppress most of the lurking RPG.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:An old dog can learn new tricks - Adamantine 6/19/2004 3:44:52 AM

Read "Thunder Run" is all I can say. The M1's and Bradley's dealt with a maelstrom of heavy machine guns and RPG's quite well. Only one tank was lost the first day and one more the second, plus several wheeled vehicles. A significantly different outcome from the Russian experience in Grozny. The M1 and Bradley were shown to be quite survivable in such an environment. Many Bradley's took and survived as many RPG hits as the M1's did. Contrary to your perspective, I believe what was shown was that a combination of mobility and armor and combined arms tactics at the company level are the key factors for heavy units in urban combat. I don't really agree with the Israeli preference for armor over mobility for the US. The IDF, due to manpower and equipment limitations, cannot easily put large combined arms units on the ground like the US can. Often they will have a very limited number of tanks supporting their infantry and the loss of even one tank could cripple the unit. Remember, the Merkava is built to support a small military that cannot afford to lose any tanks. Emphasizing armor over mobility limits its functionality as a general purpose tank, where the preference would be to balance armor and mobility.

Quote Reply

B.Smitty RE:An old dog can learn new tricks - mike_golf 6/19/2004 2:04:18 PM

I worry about this supposed "pardigm shift". Sure, we did well with our Thunder Runs, but it was against an incompetent & ill-equipped opponent! OTOH, many of the Chechens were former Soviet Army guys. They knew how the Soviets fought & were a lot more organized. Also, our primary threat in Baghdad was the RPG-7. Replace 20% of them with, say, AT-7/13s and gunners who know how to use them, and our casualties go up dramatically.

Quote Reply

Adamantine RE:An old dog can learn new tricks - Adamantine 6/19/2004 2:32:12 PM

>>Read "Thunder Run" is all I can say. The M1's and Bradley's dealt with a maelstrom of heavy machine guns and RPG's quite well. Only one tank was lost the first day and one more the second, plus several wheeled vehicles. A significantly different outcome from the Russian experience in Grozny. The M1 and Bradley were shown to be quite survivable in such an environment. Many Bradley's took and survived as many RPG hits as the M1's did. Contrary to your perspective, I believe what was shown was that a combination of mobility and armor and combined arms tactics at the company level are the key factors for heavy units in urban combat. I don't really agree with the Israeli preference for armor over mobility for the US. The IDF, due to manpower and equipment limitations, cannot easily put large combined arms units on the ground like the US can. Often they will have a very limited number of tanks supporting their infantry and the loss of even one tank could cripple the unit. Remember, the Merkava is built to support a small military that cannot afford to lose any tanks. Emphasizing armor over mobility limits its functionality as a general purpose tank, where the preference would be to balance armor and mobility. << Isreal has some 4000 tanks when fully mobilise. It also has 11000 other armour vehcile. It has about 650,000 to 800,000 troop within 4 day of rapid mobilisation. Thats about 170 to 200 people for every one tank deploy. Israel has only 6 plus million people and yet it has 4000 tanks (Merkeva1234, M60a3, M48, capture T-55 etc). Thats the HIGHEST number of tank per capital. Is real has about 660 tanks per one million population. Greece has 200 tanks per million people. If we exclude light tank maybe the figure for Greece is 120 tank per million people. North.Korea has 90 tanks per one million people. US has only 53 tank per million people. Isreal is the MOST tank and apc intensive country in the world. The experience in Iraq is not a good case study of the ability of M2/3 Bradley ability to accompany M1 in heavy combat BECAUSE you are fighting against a third rate miltary forces and conducting largely urban war after entering Bagdad. Its NOT a classic big scale armour against armour engagement AGAINT a WORTHY opponent. If Bradly is to accompany M1 to make a break through against a large number of T-80/90 or Western MBT like Leopard2 and Challenger, Bradly will suffer heavy lose. LUCKILY after the colllapse of cold war, such scenario is remote if not purely fictatious. Its unlikely that M1 and M2 bradly will face any WESTERN modern Mbt in any plausible future war, so M2 Bradly could still fight beside M1 in most of the plausible scenario. Unless Greece has a skirmish with Turkey. But then its Leopard 2 versus Leopard 2.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:An old dog can learn new tricks - Adamantine 6/19/2004 9:45:27 PM

First, I'm not talking about trying fighting heavy armor against heavy armor. Second, I think you are incorrect in your surmise that M2/M3 would suffer heavily in such a scenario. The tactics used would be dramatically different. I am talking about the use of heavy armored forces in urban environments defended by light infantry liberally armed with man-portable anti-tank weapons. Second, I agree that Israel has a huge number of tanks for the population of their country, however, a limited number of those tanks are actually modern generation MBT's like the Merkava. Second, Israel may have 4,000 tanks, but how many can actually be committed to intense combat scenarios in urban environments? And what real impact will the loss of those tanks have on the Israeli's? Just counting numbers of tanks and comparing that to their population is silly statistics that doesn't examine the true issues behind their force structure, weapons design and tactics. The reason for the Merkava to sacrifice speed for armor is that Israel cannot easily afford to lose even limited numbers of tanks and soldiers. Couple that with the fact that they are fighting their enemies either in their own country or very close by and mobility and speed are not as crucial as armor and firepower. Armor is not the be all, end all of tank design. In fact, alone of all modern western MBT's, the Merkava is the only one to place armor ahead of mobility in its design criteria. The Leo, Chally 2, LeClerc and M1 all balance armor and speed, believing, correctly, that a general purpose tank needs to have a balance of the two and that speed is as much of a viable defense on the battlefield as armor is. By the way, on your comments about the LeClerc being more accurate on the move than an M1. I have hit targets at 3500 meters on the move at 45+ kmh while moving cross-country in the desert, both in Iraq and in the US National Training Center. I really don't think the LeClerc is any better than that, and in any case, tactical movement is generally at speeds in the 40 to 50 kmh range. Please, stop and find out real facts before tossing out the latest manufacturer's propaganda.

Quote Reply

Clausewitz RE:An old dog can learn new tricks 6/21/2004 3:48:02 AM

Mike-Golf wrote: "I'm willing to admit the paradigm shift, anyone else?" 2nd Bde, 3ID was a brave, well trained and armed force. Their opponents were bad equipped and nearly untrained "Feddayin Saddam" (the ones who sacifice for Saddam, mainly ex prisoners led by one of his sons). The Republican Guards and Special Republican Guards were defeated in their conventional war defence ring around Bagdad (mainly by air strikes and partly by combined arms). They melted away and the marines/soldiers encounterd their remains in Fallujah and elsewhere in Anbar province (western Irak). If Bagdad would have been defended by well trained and well armed light infantry there would have been no "Thunder Run". A lot of of the tanks and most of the armored vehicles would have been destroyed by RPG 29, RPG 27, Panzerfaust 3 and real large IED. I do not talk of helicopters and their fate if they would have encountered modern heat seeking SAM. Even the Abrams and the Bradleys would have gained some of the large streets (we do not even talk of the narrow alleyways most of old Bagdad is made of)it would have been impossible to supply them with fuel and ammo because no truck would have been able to drive the same way. To control a city you have to fight house to house, block to block and quarter to quarter. The irakis were not really prepared to defend Bagdad. Just imagine two/three US light infantry divisons prepared to defend Bagdad. Do you really think a "Thunder Run" would have been possible? Heavy vehicles are neccessary in urban warfare to transport your infantry to the points of decision (any use of soft skin vehicles would lead to something like "Black Hawk Down"). But tanks and IFV could just support the infantry you need to really take and hold the city. If Bagdad would have been a big Fallujah or Dschenin US forces would have cordoned the city to practice some patience. And we really do not talk of any PGM equipped enemy defending a city from positions of stealth and concealment.

Quote Reply

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT