Tanks in Urban Operations

[Scoobie Newbie]

I think the Lav could have used a phone as well.

 

[Blue Max]

Gentlemen, if you look carefully at the pictoral shown on SCM77's post you will notice a phone mounted on the right rear immediately above the track.

B M.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Blue Max/SCM77,

Seen!  Looks like they've put it as far as possible from the exhaust.  A simple idea but an excellent one for tank/infantry cooperation.  A platoon of light infantry working with the tank in MOUT might be more effective than having extra cameras and the phone will certainly help in that regard.

Good picture(s).

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

2Bravo

Devil's advocate time - how much of the platoon to you want to hold as a screen to protect the tank vice moving forward clearing buildings ;D?

Cheers.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Interesting....after rejecting the Styker due to its incapability with the urban threat described above, this is what the Israelis are procuring...


The Merkeva-based Namer:

 

[Zipper]

I might look at 2 and 2. 2 squads to protect each flank/behind, and 2 squads to clear the building. If 2 squads cannot handle that, then they back out and let the tanks "soften" it some more so that they can. At least whats left of it.

Of course, many of those buildings would probably have people living there still, so that may not be such a good idea...

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Kirkhill/Zipper,

The platoon of infantry with the single tank would not be on their own, nor would they just be tank bodyguards.  I do suggest that the normal armoured principles of concentration might be put aside in the urban battle.  A company operation against a block or building might just have a Troop or single tank.  Each platoon in a company operation might have a tank attached to provide fire support.  This is a departure from normal armoured thinking but I figure that the urban battlefield deserves special treatment.

The tanks would provide precise fire support to the infantry who would in turn prevent the bad guys from killing the tank with a multitude of RPGs or satchel charges etc.  The tank should have enough armour to take an RPG hit because you can't kill everybody on the other side before they get a shot off every time.  The tank might just give the infantry enough fire support to gain a lodgement or get across the street.  The infantry around the tank would prevent "swarm" tactics (although a tank is far from defenceless).

The M1, while designed for tank vs tank combat has many virtues in urban combat due to its armour.  The modifications listed above look like excellent adaptations to the environment that the M1 is operating in right now.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Zipper]

Well another lesson learned. ;D

All good points, and I guess along the lines of what I was thinking.

So besides the Americans learning a valuable lesson and changing their equipment and tactics to suit. What can we learn from all this and how do we change?

 

[a_majoor]

Although all vehicles can have adaptions added as part of the "lessons learned", I have a few replies to some of the posts:

Firing a 60mm high velocity round at the M1 at close range would, in my opinion, be futile.  The biggest threat would be dismounts who get up close with satchel charges, flamethrowers etc (the fate of the Elefants at Kursk).  The M1 has plenty of machine guns at least.

The hypervelocity 60mm might not get a "kill", but a mobility kill (shot in the tracks) or a firepower kill (damage to the sight/electronics) is a possibility. The "Hetzer II" would also have a great deal of utility stripping away Infantry support either directly (60mm HE + MG fire); or indirectly by killing the LAVs or STRYKERS.

Devil's advocate time - how much of the platoon to you want to hold as a screen to protect the tank vice moving forward clearing buildings?

Perhaps we are talking a company sized operation here: one platoon as the screen (not only against AT teams, but also to protect against enemy snipers and forward observers), one platoon to assault and one platoon for reserve/exploitation tasks, backed by a tank platoon. In the future, we may see armoured vehicles evolve to carry their own personal escort or close protection sections; the Merkava ands Centurio are two current vehicles with that ability today.

The platoon of infantry with the single tank would not be on their own, nor would they just be tank bodyguards.  I do suggest that the normal armoured principles of concentration might be put aside in the urban battle.  A company operation against a block or building might just have a Troop or single tank.  Each platoon in a company operation might have a tank attached to provide fire support.  This is a departure from normal armoured thinking but I figure that the urban battlefield deserves special treatment.

My understanding is the tanks are mostly used as cutoffs, laying on down defined streets or other boundries, but not as intimate support for the Infantry. This gives the best of both worlds: observation and firepower for the infantry, plus the tanks are less likely to suffer a close engagement and can still use their mobility to influence the battle (drive down another street to take the enemy under fire) rather than slugging it out as a somewhat mobile pillbox.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

AMajoor,

Indeed, any tanks given to a Company for an urban operation could be employed as "cut-off", probably with one of the infantry elements that has also been assigned that task.  An infantry battalion might only have a Troop or platoon of tanks.  and a company might have only one or two tanks for a given task.  With two, perhaps one would shoot up the target while the other conducts cut-off.  As for "intimate support", you are right in that it would not be the standard TTP of tanks rolling over the objective with the infantry sections tucked in back (since the tanks can't get through the objective).  That being said, it would be the ability of the tank to employ its firepower (machine guns as well as the main gun) under protection at close range that would make it worth the risk of bringing into the city.  I think that the M1 certainly has this ability, and again the mods listed and shown above will enhance this even further.

The nice thing about the M1 is that it has shown that it is adaptable to different environments.  It excells out in the open but it has also shown the ability to go into built up areas (with infantry!).  Having a tank that carries a section as a routine function might turn into a vehicle of compromise that excells at nothing.  Still, an urban support vehicle (multiple weapon stations geared at shooting up buildings as opposed to vehicles) might be interesting.  Didn't you write an article on that a little while ago?  I believe that the Russians have developed an urban fire support variant of the T-72.

A Hetzer II with a high velocity cannon with a high rate of fire would be a danger to LAVs and Strykers.  Bear in mind that light armoured vehicles should not really be employed in the stand-up city fight.  That battle belongs to the tank and light infantry team.  LAVs are good for patrolling a city but if it is block by block battle then they should not be up front.  While a lucky shot from a Hetzer II could "track" an M1, the offending vehicle would be destroyed.  Still, an isolated M1 could find itself in a world of trouble in a city.  Once again, I feel that the value of the tank/light infantry team is the key lesson to be learned.

Cheers,

2B

 

[Infanteer]

Hetzer II?

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

"The tank should have enough armour to take an RPG hit because you can't kill everybody on the other side before they get a shot off every time."

And yet our gov't is content with the MGS. sigh

 

[a_majoor]

The nice thing about the M1 is that it has shown that it is adaptable to different environments.  It excels out in the open but it has also shown the ability to go into built up areas (with infantry!).  Having a tank that carries a section as a routine function might turn into a vehicle of compromise that excels at nothing.  Still, an urban support vehicle (multiple weapon stations geared at shooting up buildings as opposed to vehicles) might be interesting.  Didn't you write an article on that a little while ago?  I believe that the Russians have developed an urban fire support variant of the T-72.

The upgraded M-1 is the here and now solution, and is the best tool available. I was indulging in a little speculation (what, again!!!! ) as to some possible future directions. The vehicle you are alluding to is conceptualizing an improved version of the ACHZARIT with both close in fire power and the ability to carry long range fire power as well (Think of LOSAT, HELLFIRE, BRIMESTONE or FOG-M being launched from the weapons station. An "Infantry" vehicle would only carry a few rounds, while an "Armoured" vehicle would replace the section with lots more reloads of the missiles).

A "DFS" regiment which is built around a "Merkava" or "Centurio" might have pocket sized "close support sections" built into the ORBAT, freeing up Infantry battalions to do more of the heavy lifting. Alternatively, if the vehicle already has a large space in the back, it could be adapted for many different uses, such as a box of VL missiles or a TUAV, or even a surveillance mast and operators station like the Coyote. The Merkava's rear space is normally used to hold replenishment racks for the ammunition, but they can be removed to carry a small section of Infantry soldiers or a stretcher.

There is some sort of urban support vehicle built on a T-72 chassis, although I do not think it has actually gotten beyond mock-up stage, if I remember correctly it has a "road warrior" turret with 30 mm automatic cannons, machine guns and even an AT-5 ATGM launcher. A "brew up" would be pretty exciting to watch (from a suitable distance).

The "Hetzer II" is just a thought experiment as to the minimum AFV possible, especially if the OPFOR is otherwise lacking in resources. We should never discount the ability of the bad guys to come up with really nasty surprises. On the other hand, given OUR chronic lack of resources, maybe we should think along these lines. I would not mind having something like this as a support vehicle. Come to think of it, would it be a really huge leap to mount the MGS cannon in the hull, have a big ammunition carousel in the rear troop space and aim by slewing the vehicle around like an S tank? That would solve the hight and recoil problems, although it would definitely be a support weapon. Anyone care to photoshop this?

 

[Zipper]

"And yet our gov't is content with the MGS. sigh

Let see?

LUVW
Cougar on operations
Iltis
Ram Tank
Ross rifle
And I am sure a dozen others in there too...

You couldn't mount the MGS cannon in the hull. Engine and driver are in the way. But we could dig up some old hetzer plans and update them.

It would be nice if we could stay in the MBT business as it makes sense. But that means nothing to NDHQ and the Gov. They have some kind of bit in their mouths that tracked tanks are a thing of the past and thats that.

 

[Britney Spears]

Somewhat of a tangent, here are some pictures of 105mm and 120 non-lethal crowd control rounds for MBT main guns being developed in Israel.

Useful when you need to use the main gun for some shock effect, but don't want to step it up to lethal force ;D.  It would sure look better on the media than dispersing protesters with beehive rounds.

Perhaps our tankers may find gainful employment at the next WTO summit?

Non- lethal or not, I'm sure the sight of a leopard thundering towards them with the main gun blazing would really dampen the mood of any protestor mob.....

 

[Zipper]

Perhaps our tankers may find gainful employment at the next WTO summit?

Non- lethal or not, I'm sure the sight of a leopard thundering towards them with the main gun blazing would really dampen the mood of any protester mob.....

Yeah. And have that same mob joined by the rest of society tearing the very bricks of NDHQ down around their ears. Maybe in Israel, but not here.

 

[a_majoor]

Russian close fire support, from Jane's:

Description
The prototype of the BMPT is based on the chassis of the well-known T-72 MBT which is used in large numbers by the Russian Army and has been manufactured under licence by many countries.

    To the rear of the driver's compartment, at the front of the vehicle, the hull has been raised providing greater internal volume. On top of the hull is mounted a new turret armed with an externally mounted 30 mm 2A42 dual-feed cannon with a cyclic rate of fire of up to 600 rds/min. A total of 500 rounds of ready use ammunition are carried.

    This 30 mm 2A42 cannon is already in widespread use with the Russian Army and can fire a wide range of ammunition types including High Explosive - Tracer (HE-T), Armour-Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS), High-Explosive FRAGmentation (HE-FRAG) and Armour-Piercing - Tracer (AP-T).

    Mounted coaxial with the 30 mm cannon is a 30 mm AG-30 or AGS-17A automatic grenade launcher which can be a stabilised in two axis.

    Mounted on the left side of the turret is a four-round launcher for the 9M113 Konkors (NATO AT-5 Spandrel) Anti-Tank Guided Weapon (ATGW) which has a maximum range of 4,000 m and can be fitted with various types of warhead.

    To enable targets to be engaged under day and night conditions when the BMPT is stationary or moving, a computerised fire-control system is fitted, which uses proven elements from that fitted to the T-90S series MBT.

    This includes a PNK range-finding sight, day and thermal sighting systems, Agat-MR course operator's sight, combined day and night sighting system with image converter tube. Either the commander or gunner can lay the weapons onto the target using the PNK sighting system.

    There is a 7.62 mm PKT machine gun mounted in either side of the raised superstructure to provide suppressive fire over the frontal arc and aimed via a roof mounted periscope sighting device. As an alternative these can be replaced by a 30 mm automatic grenade launcher with a similar sighting system. Standard 81 mm smoke grenade launchers are positioned on the hull and turret to cover the frontal arc.

    The driver, seated in the centre of the hull at the front, has day vision devices and a TBH-5 night driving device with a range of 60 to 180 m.

    The BMPT has a combat weight of 47 tonnes and has a crew of five, maximum road speed is 65 km/h and cruising range, with external drum type diesel fuel tanks at the rear, is 550 km.

    The power pack, mounted at the rear, consists of a B92C2 four-stroke multifuel diesel with liquid cooling and supercharging, develops 1,000 hp and gives the vehicle a power-to-weight ratio of 21.2 hp/tonne.

    For a higher rate of battlefield survivability, the BMPT is fitted with additional explosive reactive armour, on the front and sides. The forward part of the suspension either side is provided with skirts fitted with explosive reactive armour, while the rear part of the suspension is fitted with a grill type passive armour array. This has been designed to detonate the incoming High-Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) projectile before it impacts the main armour.

    Standard equipment includes NBC system, 5 kW diesel generator which is mounted in an armoured compartment on the right side of the hull and an automatic two-shot fire detection and suppression system. A laser detection system is fitted which can be used in conjunction with the 81 mm smoke grenade launchers.

    Mounted at the front of the hull is a standard T-72 type dozer blade that can be used for clearing obstacles or for preparing fire positions. If required, the vehicle can be fitted with various types of mineclearing equipment, such as the KMT-8 plough type device or the EMT system, which has been designed to detonate magnetic mines well ahead of the vehicle.

 

[Shec]

Israel unveils tank protection system
Big News Network
Wednesday 9th March, 2005  (UPI)
Israel Tuesday revealed a system it says will protect vehicles -- from
Humvees to tanks -- against attacks launched from a very close range.

The system could help American troops in Iraq if they stay there long
enough, indicated the head of the government's Rafael armaments development
authority, retired Vice Admiral Yedidia Yaari.

Yaari told United Press International militant attacks on U.S. troops in
Iraq were the kind of a reality to which (Israel) had to prepare.

The system, called Trophy, detects incoming threats, such as anti-tank
rockets, and sprays tungsten balls at them. The tungsten disintegrates a
rocket-propelled grenade for example. It thus neutralizes the threat without
causing an explosion, Yaari said.

The danger of attacks on cumbersome tanks in tight urban areas has concerned
officers. Palestinians eventually approached tanks and even stole equipment.

The problem has been attacks from a very close range, Yaari said. The new
system provides all round protection from attacks launched from as close as
30 to 60 feet away, he said.

Israel showed the system to U.S. officers and, according to Yaari, those who
saw it were excited.

 

[abadasstanker69]

As a tanker who served in Iraq I just wanna say that I didn't feel helpless at all in Iraq in a city or anywhere really. I mean I was in the invading force spear head and if anyone should have been worried it was us.....not to say we where not, but we pretty much blew threw. I took a hit by an rpg as well as out commander but it did nothing but tick us off! BUT if those guys would have been a little smarter and had more "cojones" they could have given us a fight. One we went into Baghdad i remember coming around a blind corner once and the sound of the turbine engines scared the iraqi's but when we came through they had excellent positions. If they would have stuck with it they could have took at least one of us out. An rpg to the rear is all it would take. Yet I would take my M1 and my crew back any time. We did it once we can do it again!

 

[abadasstanker69]

I wish we would have had it when we invaded Iraq that's for sure!! Sounds good!! I know it's old news to you guys but I just saw the upgrades for the M1 on the first page and I have to say I am FREAKING IMPRESSED!! All that stuff looks very useful. I mean one of our loaders was killed while firing his 240 from the hatch. The reactive armor was a nice touch as well. And the guarding on the rear looks good but I dont think it would help to much to save a shot in the butt. I mean that is our main weakness and it's good to have something there but I think something else could work a little better.