Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > War and Military History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

War and Military History War and Military History Forum - Warfare, Tactics, and Military Technology over the centuries


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 20th, 2012, 08:56 PM   #91

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374

In a war between powers, no. Against third world countries, yes
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 21st, 2012, 02:26 AM   #92
HBT
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Somewhere between madness and apathy
Posts: 55
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
Its not my experiance that MILAN and mortars worked together. A MILAN Det would normally be assigned to each rifle Company as would a Mortar MFC. But the rest of the Mortars would be further back. MILAN needs to be up front.

Yes, the number of missiles carried in limited, but then once rounds are fired, you want to be moving to a new position, during which time you can pick up fresh rounds from your vehicle. yes vehicles present a larger target, but the vehicles for AT teams are generally nothing more than taxi's. With modern vehciles such as warrior, you have a degree of fire support with you. But when AT teams are deploying, the vehciles should be out of sight.

Yes, AT teams alone can only have minimal effect. Thats what they work in conjunction with other arms, such as armour. They can't stop a large armoured attack, despite what we may have been taught, but they can make them look the other way and cause major problems...
Apologies, I saw this last night but didn't have time to reply.

In four years in a rifle company I never saw a mortar section attached to any rifle platoon. This may well have been due to the fact that I was armoured infantry and not in the light role, but mortars would typically be positioned to move to provide covering fire to both rifle companies and support platoons as directed by the fire control officer.

When I moved to Support Company, anti-tank would typically react to information passed to them which originated from the Recce Platoon. In a most cases mortars would lay a screen to allow the anti-tank teams (or vehicles) to withdraw after they had attacked. On occasions, i.e when infantry were identified as moving forward alongside the armour, mortars would lay a screen allowing anti-tank to get into position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish
...The biggest threat to a tank is not another tank, or a plane. It is a single soldier with a hand held AT weapon.
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Yes, in certain circumstances man-packed anti-tank weaponry can be effective and the thought of 'What's 'round that corner? may affect a tank commander's judgement, but on the whole I would suggest that they're not as effective as some people profess.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish
This also ignores something else. Without Allied air superiority, Allied ground forces would not have been able to operate with such impunity. They would have had to keep one eye on the sky without the advantage of wooded terrain to hide in.

And if Allied aircraft could not find the Iraqi tanks, this means they were in hiding. Thus denying them of of the tanks 3 key asset's, mobility.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly
Strange you should make this point because I seem to recall a US army Apache squadron claiming 149 kills (not all tanks perhaps) on a single mission
Not disputing your figures, but the performance of the Apache Gunship in the first Gulf War was questioned in a few quarters.

'...As the clear favorite in the contest, the Apache has predictably flown into the heaviest opposition. Its detractors delight in pointing out that in its first major battlefield test - the Gulf War - Apache left much to be desired.

Not only did it frequently break down, but the computer systems designed to control its armaments failed several times to distinguish ally from enemy... Link


Quote:
Originally Posted by Poly
...I used to be an Image Analyst, modern sensors mounted in UAVs locate AFVs easily - as soon as they turn on their engine, they stand out like a turd on a billiard table

If tanks are caught in the open, they're dead meat to unopposed airpower

It's no coincidence that in 1973 the Egyptian advance was halted as soon as it advanced beyond the umbrella of their SAM screen

In 1967, with their air forces destroyed the combined Arab forces lasted 6 days

Air power does count
Air power does count; however, it is not as effective as some claim. By the time that the initial air strikes were finished in the first Gulf War, it is estimated that the Iraqi's had lost just under one third of their tanks in Kuwait.

'...CENTCOM was able to report that the coalition air forces had destroyed 1300 of the 4000 tanks in the Kuwaiti Theater of Operations (KTO)... Link (Page 28)

There is also some dispute as to the effectiveness of air power in curtailing Iraqi ground movements -

...The claim that coalition air power neutralized the Iraqi ground forces by preventing them from maneuvering is clearly wrong. During the ground war, virtually all of Iraq’s mobile divisions—which comprised nearly all of Iraq’s combat power—were on the move...

...Furthermore, the Iraqis were not savaged by air power during their maneuvers. More than 3,000 Iraqi armored vehicles were on the move during the ground war, and only about 150 of these were destroyed in concentrations along the roads by coalition aircraft.More important, almost all of the vehicles destroyed along the roads were moving north to withdraw from the theater rather than west to oppose the left hook... Link (Page 27)


Please note both documents are quite large PDF's.

The first document is a paper prepared by the National Defense Research Institute (RAND) for the United States' Office of the Secretary of Defense; whilst sources used in the second academic document are, amongst many others, the CIA and the Gulf War Air Power Survey.

Last edited by HBT; November 21st, 2012 at 02:35 AM.
HBT is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 08:32 AM   #93
Suspended until November 2nd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 5,909

Quote:
Originally Posted by HBT View Post
Apologies, I saw this last night but didn't have time to reply.

In four years in a rifle company I never saw a mortar section attached to any rifle platoon. This may well have been due to the fact that I was armoured infantry and not in the light role, but mortars would typically be positioned to move to provide covering fire to both rifle companies and support platoons as directed by the fire control officer. .
No, you won't see a Mortar Det attached to a rifle platoon or Company, i was saying the MFC. Along with the FOO party, they can call down indirect fire in support of the Company.

Of course each Battalion will use its assets in a different way. I spent 12 years Armoured Inf 4 of which in MILAN. We were often attached to rilfe companies, but would operate apart from the company, often as you say on info from Recce. One reason we were attached to rifle companies is because we had MIRA which was very handy for night stages.


Quote:
Originally Posted by HBT View Post
We're going to have to agree to disagree on that point. Yes, in certain circumstances man-packed anti-tank weaponry can be effective and the thought of 'What's 'round that corner? may affect a tank commander's judgement, but on the whole I would suggest that they're not as effective as some people profess. .
Michael Wittmann considered the biggest threat to a tank to be a well concealed AT gun. The modern version of that is the AT rocket system. This can be well hidden and concealed. They make little noise when moving and don't give off huge exhaust or dust trails. They can lay hiddn in most terrain until the armour is right on top of them before opening fire.
Bish is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 12:47 PM   #94
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,062

Quote:
Originally Posted by KUZGUN View Post
Do you know T-155 Fırtına?

T-155 F

Azerbaijan is interested in buying Fırtına. But Fırtına has a German engine and Germany prevents the sale of Fırtına to Azerbaijan, because of Azerbaijan-Armenian conflict. Turkey plans to develop a new engine for both Fırtına and Altay, so we can sell them to whoever the **** we want. Unfortunately the first batch of Altays will have a German engine as well. BS...
"MKEK, on the other hand has secured a preliminary contract from Azerbaijan valued at over US$200 Million for the delivery of 36 T-155 Fırtına 155mm 52 Caliber Self Propelled Howitzers (SPHs), however since problems experienced in getting end-use document for the power pack the sale has not ben realised so far. According to SSM and MKEK officials the problem has been solved and the alternative company has been found for the power pack."

http://www.monch.com.tr/index.php?op...sk=view&id=160
Qaraqoyunlu is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 01:10 PM   #95
Historian
 
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,034

Quote:
Originally Posted by emperor of seleucid View Post
In a war between powers, no. Against third world countries, yes
You might want to be careful about making sweeping judgements like that. If a determined guerilla force is armed with good anti tank weapons, the tank is just a lumbering death trap.
deke is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 01:14 PM   #96

infestør's Avatar
Surprise pølse!
 
Joined: Jan 2012
From: Ẍ
Posts: 3,831
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Qaraqoyunlu View Post
"MKEK, on the other hand has secured a preliminary contract from Azerbaijan valued at over US$200 Million for the delivery of 36 T-155 Fırtına 155mm 52 Caliber Self Propelled Howitzers (SPHs), however since problems experienced in getting end-use document for the power pack the sale has not ben realised so far. According to SSM and MKEK officials the problem has been solved and the alternative company has been found for the power pack."

Monch Yaynclk - Armoured Vehicles in Turkey
i'm pretty sure they mean engine (+transmission maybe) by power pack (i mean, wtf is a power pack?! ). any idea which brand the replacement engine is? (eat dirt MTU!)

Last edited by infestør; November 21st, 2012 at 01:30 PM.
infestør is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 01:39 PM   #97
Suspended until November 2nd, 2014
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk.
Posts: 5,909

Quote:
Originally Posted by infestør View Post
i'm pretty sure they mean engine (+transmission maybe) by power pack (i mean, wtf is a power pack?! ). any idea which brand the replacement engine is? (eat dirt MTU!)
Yes, a power pack is an engine and transmission combined.
Bish is offline  
Old November 21st, 2012, 06:55 PM   #98

emperor of seleucid's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2012
From: Arche Seleukeia
Posts: 2,374

Quote:
Originally Posted by deke View Post
You might want to be careful about making sweeping judgements like that. If a determined guerilla force is armed with good anti tank weapons, the tank is just a lumbering death trap.
You don't see guerrillas getting armed much less another superpower is supporting them.
emperor of seleucid is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 12:53 AM   #99
HBT
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Oct 2012
From: Somewhere between madness and apathy
Posts: 55
Blog Entries: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bish View Post
...Michael Wittmann considered the biggest threat to a tank to be a well concealed AT gun. The modern version of that is the AT rocket system. This can be well hidden and concealed. They make little noise when moving and don't give off huge exhaust or dust trails. They can lay hiddn in most terrain until the armour is right on top of them before opening fire.
That may well have been the case in the second world war, but again, we're going to have to agree to disagree; once you get past all of the hyperbole there is very little evidence to suggest that man-packed anti-tank weaponry is anything more than a nuisance against modern battle tanks

'...At the same time, the M-1A1 and the Challenger 1 showed high effectiveness at ranges as close as 100 meters, and survived anti-tank weapons as well as tank guns. This argues that superior rates of engagement, protection, and mobility will also be important in mountain and urban warfare.

It is not possible to generalize much beyond this point. The Gulf War revealed little about the value of anti-tank guide missile countermeasure systems, the current state of tank versus anti-tank weapons duels between well-equipped and well-trained forces, tank on helicopter engagements, engagement between first ranking modern tanks, and issues like the need to upgrade armor and gun size. Link (Page 769)...'


The reality is, that until the British, American, German or French armies (to name a few) go up against an army that has comparable communications and weapons technology and training, the only thing those armies can do is to keep talking about how good their weapons are.

I apologise in advance, the PDF is very large.

Last edited by HBT; November 22nd, 2012 at 01:35 AM. Reason: Bad grammar :-(
HBT is offline  
Old November 22nd, 2012, 03:44 AM   #100

Nemowork's Avatar
Teflon Soul
 
Joined: Jan 2011
From: South of the barcodes
Posts: 5,363

The Israelis are bragging about their new trophy defence system and Hezbollah seem to have a good supply of top of the range AT missiles, i guess we're going to have to wait for them to have another go at each other to figure out which way that technology is going.
Nemowork is online now  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > War and Military History

Tags
battles, crucial, tanks, today


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Confederacy uses tanks Nick Speculative History 7 April 27th, 2013 05:45 PM
Crucial battles of the antiquity duccen Ancient History 2 January 16th, 2012 05:55 AM
Tanks THut95 War and Military History 254 September 16th, 2011 04:04 AM
Three most crucial battles in your nation's past? JohnnyH General History 60 December 4th, 2009 06:58 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.