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: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

MikkoLn RE:An old dog can learn new tricks 6/21/2004 10:05:48 AM

I still wouldn't say that there's much resemblance between Grozny and Bagdad, apart from fighting insurgents. In both cases the opposition members seem to have been determined and even fanatic to their cause, but that's about all that's common. And, too bad for unlucky Iraqi resistant members, that doesn't alone matter much. What Soviets faced was a guerrilla force well equipped (nearly as well as their own troops, just imagine Iraqis with current US arms at their possession in quantity), somewhat experienced andprofessional, and above all, organized beyond the most obvious level. Chechen rebels were actually an army with clear organization, lead chain and objective, not a band of insurgents acting more or less remotely and by their own will, with mostly very primitive means of weaponary. What on the other hand Bagdad is just witnessing - groups of fanatic opposition members but with very poor organizational level (from military point of view). Now, what went wrong and what went right was that Soviets took on organized guerrilla army as if it was a weak group of unorganized insurgents. On theother hand, US is taking on weak unorganized insurgents like they were well organized guerrilla army. And don't take me wrong now, though in this context it might sound as something bad and exaggeration I don't mean it that way at all.Just to show how dramatically things differed from each other despite seemingly similiar situation. Now like I said before, at the situation being, the equipment used (and their differences) isn't the major cause to how things went and are going. No western equipment could have saved russians under those circumstances. And I would even dare to say that no russian equipment would prevent US from doing as well (or bad, whatever you want to take it) as they do under those circumstances. Should there be real organized and adequately armed guerrilla army vs. occupying greater force confrontation, i.e. the situation would resemble more wartime, equipment differences might be more important. But then again, like Clausewitz said, casualties would then be much higher among occupying force operating in urban territory, regardless of hardware. I hope current experiences don't feed too much positive opinions towards usage of mechanised troops in urban enviroment, since that might lead again to serious miscalculations in the future, if confronted with more able enemy. Going the russian way is never the right one - hope that was enough of a lesson for all the others too... But something from the original text also from now - I think the fear of M1's falling to prey of RPG's is still not very good reasoning. Sure, there might be more casualties and destroyed M1's, but not beyond the level that could be expected and what is acceptable. Under full scale guerrilla war troops might want to re-evaluate the usage of tanks. At the time being, I see no large scale reason for that fear. For everything that I've seen, and now written, the large scale operation hasn't been a failure from pure military operations point of view (civilian casualties, opinions, home field thoughts and huge political area are things of another classes).

Quote Reply

MikkoLn RE:An old dog can learn new tricks 6/21/2004 10:11:11 AM

For a usage of mechanised forces a slight correction - didn't say that to point out that mehc. troops shoudn't be used at all in urban environment, but just tried to catch the idea of careless, ill-planned or overconfident operations and the great risks that are included.

Quote Reply

Tac Ops RE:An old dog can learn new tricks - mike_golf 6/24/2004 12:27:16 AM

Israel has a lot of Merkavas. They have over 1,200 Merkavas. They can survive even if they lose a tank, they've lost them before. Also Israel is much better at fighting in an urban enviroment then the United States. The reason the Merkava is so heavily armored is because the Israelis found out through combat that armor is better than speed in combat. If they wanted to they could have built a bunch of light tanks.

Quote Reply

hybrid RE:An old dog can learn new tricks - tac ops 6/24/2004 3:27:04 AM

Sure the Merkavas are better at urban combat, but that and hilly/mountainous terrain is what they were designed to fight in. The modern MBTs of Europe for the most part and the Abrams series of the US were designed to fight the European theater against a massive russian armor threat. Mobility, accurate and heavy firepower and nearly as much heavy armor was necessary for those kinds of situations. Nonetheless as I said each tank has its own role in mind. The merkava's is urban combat, creating a whole new tank for urban combat only relegates a good chunk of its operations to being non-optimal.

Quote Reply

Adamantine Merkava 4 hp/ton may not be lower than M1A2sep 6/24/2004 2:44:57 PM

Now if we just talk about the Merkava 1 ,2 ,3. We may have this idea that IDF DELIBERATELY sacrifice speed for armour. But if we analyse carefully that is NOT a compromise. I rather say its due to lack of suitable engine. In the past, Isrealis depended mainly on US diesel engine. Teledyne Continental Motors is the supplier for Merkava MK 3. The max power rating is 1200hp. Apart from M1, Stvr 103 and T-80, very few if any tank would use a gas turbine. So lets assume IDF decided to use a diesel for Merkava, he generally has no choice except to BUY from US for political reason. No US design engine exceed 1200hp. Of course if Israel is going to pay Teledyne for R&D, Teledyner might try to engineer a 1500hp to 1600 hp engine for Merkava 1,2,3. But lets assume IDF do not wish to incure so much cost and would just make do with the most powerful US diesel engine that is available at a reasonable cost and what is offered is the 1200 hp engine. IDF would just MATE the engine to a tank that MET its requirement for armour protection, ammunition stowage and excess space for infantry. And it so happen that the tank weight 63 to 64 ton. Naturally you end up with a tank that is slightly underpower because the teledyne engine is simply no that power dense. We should also remember that the SPACE allocated for mounting the engine and transmission in Merkava is NOT necessarily LESS than Leopard2 or Ariete. It just so happen that the engine is not that high tech (low kw/m3). For political reason, German do not sell tank engine directly to IDF. So in the past IDF cannot get the MB 873 Ka501 (engine for the first generation of Leo2 A1 to A3) from MTU even though that engine would enable Merkava 1,2,3 to develop 1500hp of power. Note that supercharge AVDS-1790 engine use by Merkava Mk3 is about the same size as the older original version of leopard 2 engine---MB 870 KA 501. From the onset, Merkava is design with the capacity to accept an engine as big as the MTU MB873, but could not procure that engine for various reason, partly cost, partly political. All that change when General Dynamic start producing the GD883. This engine is just a LICENSE build copy of the MT 883 Europack engine used by the latest Leo2 and UAE Leclerc. IDF could procure this excellent german design diesel directly from US and circumvent the the need to import directly from Germany which still refuse to sell the engine for political reason. Suddenly, Merkava 4 achieve a power to weight ratio of a respectable 23hp/ton. That is just very slightly lower than the 24.2 hp/ton of the highly mobile Leo2a6 and 23.73 hp/ton of M1A2sep. With such a small difference, WHERE ON EARTH IS THE so call greater emphasis of mobility of M1 and Leo2 versus Merkava?? The newer generation of Leo2a6 and M1a2sep is getting HEAVIER because it is NECESSARY. The need for greater protection results in heavier armour. The emphasis changed. As for Merkava, its not a question of greater emphasis in armour, IDF just fail to get the engine it want in the past. Now it can procure what it really want, it chose the 1500hp GD883. If IDF do not see importance in mobility, it can procure a 10V version of the 883 engine, which develop 1250hp instead of the 12V version that develop 1500hp. I am sure if GD can license build the even more powerful and similar size MT 890 14v or 16v, IDF will not mind having an engine that develop 1800 to 2000hp for its future derivation of Merkava. The only modern high tech tank that TRULY emphasis speed over armour is the Japanese Type90. The combat weight of this tank is ONLY 52000kg. Its engine develop 1500hp which gives it a 28.8hp/ton power/weight ratio. When it comes to M1a2sep, we should note that the DU armour is quite heavy, uranium is about 2.3 times the density of steel. That why it is heavier. How heavy?? Some source indicate that M1a2sep weights 69540kg while other sources indicate that it is 63504kg. If we take the higher weight, M1A2sep only develop 21.57 hp/ton, lower than the 23hp/ton of merkava 4. The whole argument about Merkava emphasis less on speed collapse. Its high time to change the M1 engine to the LV100-5. And US army better make sure that LV100-5 develop 1700-1800hp instead of 1500hp. For a tank that is above 63000kg, a more powerful engine is necessary to maintain acceleration and speed. Otherwise the M1a2sep will be noticeably less maneuvrable than M1 or M1a1. Leopard2 will soon have a uprated MT883 that register 1650hp.

Quote Reply

AlbanyRifles I believe you missed the man's point 6/24/2004 3:42:55 PM

Mike Gof is not casting aspersions at the IDF or saying that the US Army just mount up and charge. What he says, and what we saw last spring, was a paradigm shift IN US ARMY DOCTRINE. Prior to that it was anathema for US mechanized units to fight mounted in the city. What we saw was that in the right conditions, US Forces may decide to fight in a MOUT sitution mounted and dismount as needed. The great combination of speed, firepower and protection afforded by the M1A1 & M2A2/M2A3 allowed greater flexibility than previously thought. And coupled with the big change of the USAF providing overhead air support IN A CITY!!! is a big change is US doctrine. It just shows that the US Army is not hide bound and can adapt as needed.

Quote Reply

old-one RE:An old dog can learn new tricks 6/27/2004 7:23:37 PM

One might ask, what other combined armour and infantry operation occurred, in a big and crowded city, shortly prior to the battle for Baghdad. Was there any similarity in the tactics used and the outcome?

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:I believe you missed the man's point 6/27/2004 7:52:58 PM

Thanks Albany, you're dead on.

Quote Reply

mike_golf RE:I believe you missed the man's point 6/27/2004 7:55:00 PM

As a follow on to that comment, I think that 3ID would have done significantly better in Grozny than the Russian Army did, so using Grozny and what happened to the Russians (who's tactics, operational concept, training and support were wholly inadequate to the task) as a counter to what I'm saying won't cut much mustard with me.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral RE:RPGs 7/28/2004 5:38:05 AM

Electric armour could well be retro fitted to the M1 and C2 to offer greater protection from shaped charges (HEAT)

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT