# Russian analysis of US Armour in Iraq



## a_majoor (6 Jul 2005)

This is very intteresting, and covers the M-1, M-2 and Stryker vehicles in action. There are some interesting conclusions we might draw from these observations regarding vehicle systems, design and employment.

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/?form=print



> *US Armor in Operation "Iraqi Freedomâ ?
> *
> Vasiliy Fofanov
> 
> ...


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (7 Jul 2005)

The article is an interesting read, but I found it somewhat overstated the case about the M1s flaws in urban combat.   The M1 is not invulnerable, but you'd be hard pressed to find a better tank.   I think that the recent upgrades announced for the M1 show that the US Army has a well functioning lessons learned process tied back to the equipment folks.   I read an Abrams AAR in Jun 03 that dealt with many issues both good and bad.
   
I'd rather have a dual-purpose round for the main gun (like HESH) then a bunch of smaller weapons to replace the main gun.   Specialized urban assault vehicles sound neat, but I feel that a balanced MBT is the way to go.

I think that Stryker will end-up being a successful "stability ops" vehicle, much like our own family of vehicles.   They didn't buy them for that role, but I think it is their strong suite.     

Looking forward, a future conflict could have the following design.   Heavy forces (M1s/Bradleys/MLRS etc) sweep forward, conducting classic heavy-metal combat.   Urban areas are dealt with (when required) by Light Forces backed up by M1s (say one Platoon of tanks for a Battalion of Light Infantry).   Stryker mounted forces then come in the occupy said country, backed up by a smaller force of M1s and Light Infantry.

Cheers,

Iain

p.s. That being said, perhaps the Urban Firesupport Vehicle could be the equivalent of the WWII "Funnies."  Put on some flamethrowers.


----------



## pappy (7 Jul 2005)

interesting read, wonder if they did one on thier own products with similar warfare in Checnya, etc....  with russian built tanks littering the battle fields all around the world no comment is nessecary there...

But no tank is immune, much simplier to build and design anti-tank weapons then AT-proof tanks...

Lessons the IDF learned in Beruit, anit-personnel/Anti sniper role: M163 (M113's armed with 20mm vulcans) when something with a lil more punch was needed... in came the M-!09 155mm howitzers for some direct fire....  take fire from a building, take down the building... or my favorite M110 8in howitzers, boom boom out go the lights...

Urban warfare is high loss warfare...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jul 2005)

Centurion Engineer Vehicle. Still used by the Brits. Up armoured, 165 mm demolition gun and dozer blade.Get 'er done!!


----------



## Infanteer (7 Jul 2005)

I see a picture of the back of a vehicle with two Bergans in the back....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jul 2005)

I'm IT challenged . Now if someone can blow it up a bit for me.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2005)

Some of the stuff I found interesting was the way the Russians looked at the individual pionts of the vehicles in isolation, and only one line in the entire article indicated the requirement for "team" SA.



> Integrated C4SI provides enhanced situational awareness and allows the crew to navigate unfamiliar streets and rapidly come to the aid of ambushed comrades.



It seems the Russians may still not have their heads fully wrapped around the idea of fighting with _information_, but like many of us, look at the heavy metal aspect of warfare as the be all and end all. Many of the reccomendations were for product improved versions of the M-1, M-2 or Stryker (and a lot of these ideas have been addressed by the Americans), and a few paragraphs for all new vehicle designs (I'm for some of that). It was interesting that the Russians have also developed a form of "slat" armour, and are impressed with the performance of Stryker wheeled vehicles (even suggesting they should develop another generation of wheeled vehicles for internal use and export. BTR '15 anyone?)

Pappy makes some interesting observations about supressing fire in urban ops, the Russians are big on that as well (attaching a battery of guns or mortars to individual companies during the later stages of the Battle of Grozney), and also make some observations in the article about the gap between the automatic cannons of the Bradleys and heavy weapons that can breach walls and fortifications. The American answer was tank fire or TOW missiles, the author seems to believe a medium calibre weapon (50-60mm) might be enough to do the trick. I think I would go for Matt Fisher's "CAT" modified Leopard with a breech loading 120 mortar as the main gun; the Jihadis would need a heck of a lot of sandbags to stop that.

Lots of food for thought, and some ideas that can be incorporated into other threads (he he he).


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (8 Jul 2005)

While a student at the US Army Armor School we studied the initial Grozny battle.  Lots of gruesome pictures of charred AFV crews and modern Russian MBTs with their turrets blows off from RPG hits to the side/rear.  The urban fight is not the preferred armoured battlefield but you need to go where the fight is.  I think that the answers are both technical and tactical.  

Tanks and AFVs can be modified to improve their urban capabilities.  Improved side/rear armour and protected weapon stations for the MGs are important.  Exterior stowage rules need to be ruthlessly enforced.  Nothing flamable can be stored on top.  Tank barrels have problems in streets (traverse) and you need the right kind of ammo for the main gun (I think that HESH would be the right round most of the time).  Perhaps a "thermobaric" round for tanks could be produced?  I think that smaller calibres would not be the right way to go.  The Germans produced the 150mm Brumbar based on Stalingrad.  Improved comms is always good, but a way to see into the close-in blind spots of a tank from a closed down position would be excellent.  Tank telephones or a way to PRR the tank crew into the infantry platoon would be handy (veh mounted comms tend to drown out the dismounted sets up close).  This brings me to the tactical side.

Low-level combined arms groupings are critical.  Big infantry platoons and companies combined with small numbers of attached MBTs should be the norm.  I hate to say it, but tanks may have to be parcelled out in ones and twos (ie a Platoon or Company of infantry get one or two tanks).  The infantry keep the bad guys from getting roof-top RPG shots on tanks.  The tank (or tanks) come up and act as mobile strongpoints and/or blast centres of resistance with precision direct fire.

Cheers,

Iain

p.s. I wonder what the insurgents in house would think of a couple of old-school WW II Crocodiles coming up the street...


----------



## Lance Wiebe (8 Jul 2005)

Fafanov is a fascinating guy, and keeps coming up with very interesting, and insightful articles. 

I agree, the comments, or lack therof, about fighting with current intel seems to be glossed over.  He also seems to be over-praising the Styker somewhat, and ignoring the deficiencies.  For example, the Stryker is not protected over a 360 degree arc from 14.5, it is only protected that over the frontal 70 degrees.  Sides and rear are protected from 7.62 only.  He also conveniently ignores the fact that wheeled AFV's in general, have a very hard time moving in deep snow and mud.  

His comments about the 25mm I concur with.  The 25 sucks as a AFV cannon, especially the HEI round.  Not much fire suppression there!

I also question his motives.  Thousands of RPG's have been fired at the M1's and the C2's.  And how many kills do they have to show for it?  A kill ratio of AFV's of 1 or 2% is praising the weapon with faint praise.  And blaming vehicle design for the 1 or 2% that penetrate seems just a little bit on the silly side.  If a Stryker had 100 RPG's shot at it, I doubt if it would drive away, to tell you the truth.

Having said that, he does make a lot of good points.  Tracks are indeed vulnerable to damage, and breaking one will immobilise a tracked vehicle.  Destroying a tire will not immobilise a wheeled vehicle.  The MGS is also at the upper end of weight for an 8-wheel vehicle, and will have more difficulties with mobility.  I'm talking stress here, axles and hubs and suspension bits are suffering under the excess weight, and have limited the mobility of the MGS to roads and tracks.  Of course, solutions will be found, but will also add to the already immense cost of the vehicle.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2005)

Getting back to the wheeled vehicles, I wonder if some interpolation is in order.

The author praises the ability of the Stryker to carry on after a shot which would be a mobility kill for a track, its general level of protection (especially when supplemented by the "birdcage") and its speed and mobility in the urban setting. He also suggests that it is too costly and perhaps the Russians should develop a family of wheeled vehicles. Lastly, he seems to want a 50-60mm main gun for APC/IFV class vehicles.

This would perhaps lay out a presumptive BTR '15. It would be a fairly large vehicle (similar in size to the BTR 60 through 90 families), although a lot of internal space would be devoted to under armour stowage, extra survival equipment (multiple fire suppression systems) and protected ammunition stowage. The BTR '15 would have a "cage" of some sort as standard, and be armed with a large calibre main gun (50-60mm if the author has anything to do with it) and probably a HMG coax, as well as several OWS stations (one on the turret roof, and one over the back deck like early model "Marder" IFVs). The cannon would be a compromise between hitting power and ammunition stowage, and like most Russian vehicles, would probably have the provision for mounting an ATGM as well. Like most Russian APC/IFV designs, the PBI in the back is last on the list of priorities.

Even for a Russian vehicle, it will be costly, because of all the capabilities they will build into it. (We need to reduce the costs of the Stryker and similar vehicles, but a lot of this could be delt with by ordering them in true assembly line quantities, rather than hand building them).

We could build a next generation LAV 3.5 incorporating a lot of these features as well, or a new design (perhaps based on the Swedish SEV prototype), but emphasising the lessons learned that 2Bravo has pointed out, as well as building in our information processing advantages with better crew stations and interfaces, and ordering the systems in quantities that support low cost assembly line production.
Wheeled mobility is a difficult subject, the only way to really get good cross country mobility with wheels is to make something with a wheel footprint and ground pressure like an Argo 8X8 ATV, which would require a major design effort.


----------



## Zipper (11 Jul 2005)

All very good points.

That was a great article by the way Majoor.

One thing I wonder about is the fact that the Russian way of doing things is to completely destroy whatever is in front of them and to count the bodies afterwords. Great for unlimited full scale war (I love the 155mm direct fire support idea ;D). But it would hardly fly in the "western" (NATO) world when you are taking out whole city blocks to achieve your mission. Is there a compromise between our toy 25 and the Russian's ideas?

Oh, and I think an ol' Croc would be awesome, except for the large house/block fire afterwards. But limited flame throwers might not be all that bad.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jul 2005)

I don't want to be near that "Croc" when the Jihadis open up with the RPG barrage; the block fire will be centered on the fuel trailer! 

Close quarter fighting in an urban setting needs some specialized weaponry, autocannon don't have enough punch, but missiles and tank guns have issues of their own in urban settings. I don't think the 50-60mm cannon is a really effective idea, the shell is still quite small, and the HE or explosive charge would only have a limited effect. Troops bunkered into buildings or barricades would probably have a reasonable level of protection against this sort of round. If the enemy have IFVs or tanks, a 50mm round will probably just piss them off. (Even a WWII Sherman needed to be hit with at least a 75mm for a kill)

Machine guns and AGLs are great for supressing the enemy and keeping their heads down inside the bunkers, but to really whack these guys you need a much bigger shell (probably 90mm), and Matt Fisher's breach loading 120mm mortar on a Leopard chassis would require a heck of a lot of sand bags to defeat.

Like most problems, there are several solutions. Larger calibre guns, combined with special ammunition are needed to dig out bunkers and dug in troops, 120mm HE, or 90mm Thermobaric would be able to defeat most "practical" bunkers and improvised fortifications. Lots of MG fire is needed to keep them pinned inside the bunkers, the biggest threat would be dismounted RPG "tank hunting" teams trying to sneak in on you.

In the short term, many of these solutions are being met with add-on kits for the M-1, M-2 and Stryker families, and certainly TTPs are being modified to meet these challenges. Like I noticed before, the Russians havn't quite gotten the concept of fighting with information, yet.


----------



## Zipper (11 Jul 2005)

> Like most problems, there are several solutions. Larger calibre guns, combined with special ammunition are needed to dig out bunkers and dug in troops, 120mm HE, or 90mm Thermobaric would be able to defeat most "practical" bunkers and improvised fortifications. Lots of MG fire is needed to keep them pinned inside the bunkers, the biggest threat would be dismounted RPG "tank hunting" teams trying to sneak in on you.



Not to (too) neatly tie this in with your (and 2B's) ideas of MMB (Cavalry), but wouldn't the idea of having (tank, LAV, etc...) units with dismounted infantry and an assault trp take care of the RPG "hunter" units and also the bunker in question? That is if your assault trp was equiped with a big enough gun.



> Like I noticed before, the Russians havn't quite gotten the concept of fighting with information, yet.



Who needs info beyond knowing the general location of the enemy? Especially if your taking out whole city blocks in order to get them.

Killing flies with shot guns perhaps? And maybe a few kilos of high explosives...


----------



## Zipper (14 Jul 2005)

Ok.

Here is a question then. Two parter...



> The fragmentation ammunition of the IFV's 25 mm automatic cannon was not effective against enemy infantry in buildings



If this is so? And the 25mm is not effective against armoured vehicles beyond light and possably medium classification, then why did we go with it instead of the heavier 30 or 35mm?

AND if the MGS can only carry a small load of ammo, and it would probably be a mixed load, why are we even considering it even as an infantry support platform (DFS)?

It seems the Russian had a very low opinion of either.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jul 2005)

The 25mm "Chain Gun" was selected for a lot of reasons, some practical and some political. 

On the practical side, a 25mm has enough energy to defeat APCs and below class vehicles (Imagine the look on a Somali "Technical" driver's face when he turns the corner and sees that instead of a HMMVW w/.50.... ), and is small enough that you can carry a reasonable amount of ammunition in the vehicle. The downside is 25mm AP is good at ventalating a building, but has little effect behind the wall, unless you are standing there, while 25mm HE can be defeated by masonry construction (especially if it is reinforced with sandbags etc.)

The Laws of Physics dictate how large of a weapon you can carry on a particular vehicle, I suspect a LAV might be able to handle the recoil force of a 30mm, but after that it becomes a bit dicey. This brings us to the unfortunate MGS. Even a downsized version with the GIAT turret and a 90mm cannon will probably have issues with firing arcs. I simply cannot understand how you can only be able to fit 18 105mm rounds in such a large vehicle (the GIAT 90mm is meant for the smaller LAV II [Coyote/Bison/Marine LAV-25 sized] and can hold 32 rounds).In terms of fire support vehicles, LAV class DFS will probably be limited to 90mm, or magic bullet PGM fire. I like the FOG-M concept as having the most versatility in complex terrain, if you have a good fix on the "shooter", you can launch form well outside their engagement range and fly the sucker right into the window. If the missile dosn't get them the 18cm HEAT/MP warhead will!

_Fighting with information_ requires you can access lots of reliable information and act on it quickly. The Russians have very crude information handling systems, allowing them to pinpoint what block the Chechen's are in and vaporizing that with artillery. An example of our "fighting with information is the "Ferret" gunshot sensor. In a network environment, your C/S picks up and locates the sniper's position with the Ferret, and my C/S takes that information and puts some fire through the window. Other C/S use the info to avoid the sniper, establish a cordon around the area and plan the assault on the building. The local population will have less of an issue with that sort of action.


----------

