Urban Combat and Tanks in Baghdad

[Strafe]

Since Reuters is reporting that the US has started it's main thrust into Baghdad with armored columns, I was wondering, AFAIK, I was under the impression that sending armor into cities is usually poor strategy. I understand that the Abrams and Bradleys are excellent vehicles, but the fact that Iraqi irregulars could be hiding in buildings with RPG's seems worrisome. An Abrams or Bradley could roll by and then it gets an RPG up the ass. (Of course the irregular's life expectancy after shooting would drop to about 3 seconds, but the damage would be done.)

Also would sabot rounds be counterproductive in urban combat? It would seem that they would go through several things before stopping in a civilian building for lots of collateral damage.

[weemadando]

I'm guessing that HESH rounds or the latest variant thereof would be of the most use in urban centres. Even then, most of the work will still likely be done by the poor fucking grunts running alongside the tanks.

[MKSheppard]

I'm guessing that HESH rounds or the latest variant thereof would be of the most use in urban centres. Even then, most of the work will still likely be done by the poor fucking grunts running alongside the tanks.

US doesn't have HESH.

[Sea Skimmer]

I'm guessing that HESH rounds or the latest variant thereof would be of the most use in urban centres. Even then, most of the work will still likely be done by the poor fucking grunts running alongside the tanks.

US doesn't have HESH.

He didn't say the US did, no one has ever designed a smoothbore HESH round and it's the main reason why the Challenger II kept a rifled gun. HESH would be highly effective for urban fighting. The US actually does have something very similar for Stryker, HEP or high explosive plastic. But its anti armor capability is limited. It's mainly designed for knocking holes in walls.

[Knife]

Since Reuters is reporting that the US has started it's main thrust into Baghdad with armored columns, I was wondering, AFAIK, I was under the impression that sending armor into cities is usually poor strategy. I understand that the Abrams and Bradleys are excellent vehicles, but the fact that Iraqi irregulars could be hiding in buildings with RPG's seems worrisome. An Abrams or Bradley could roll by and then it gets an RPG up the ass. (Of course the irregular's life expectancy after shooting would drop to about 3 seconds, but the damage would be done.)

Also would sabot rounds be counterproductive in urban combat? It would seem that they would go through several things before stopping in a civilian building for lots of collateral damage.

From what I have seen on the TV, the outskirts of Baghdad is some what open and have only one to two story buildings in no apperent concentrations. Rolling the M1's around in the edges of the city seems to be more phscological than anything else. The Brads, on the other hand, will be used for tactical mobility with mounted and dismounted infantry. The dismounted infantry plus CIFS will (try to) neutralize the RPG threat, and if not, sheer numbers will flood the area to illeminate the threat.

[Sea Skimmer]

Since Reuters is reporting that the US has started it's main thrust into Baghdad with armored columns, I was wondering, AFAIK, I was under the impression that sending armor into cities is usually poor strategy. I understand that the Abrams and Bradleys are excellent vehicles, but the fact that Iraqi irregulars could be hiding in buildings with RPG's seems worrisome. An Abrams or Bradley could roll by and then it gets an RPG up the ass. (Of course the irregular's life expectancy after shooting would drop to about 3 seconds, but the damage would be done.)

Also would sabot rounds be counterproductive in urban combat? It would seem that they would go through several things before stopping in a civilian building for lots of collateral damage.

Sabot rounds are useless against soft targets. However HEAT, while not ideal works fairly well. The latest US HEAT rounds had a fragmentation jacket added so they would work better against soft targets and helicopters IIRC.

In an urban fight, unsupported armor is a poor idea. But as part of a combined arms team its very useful. Tanks and IFV's provide a base of fire infantry can't match, and can over match most any strong point. IFV's and APC's are also very useful for quickly moving troops through exposed areas, RPG's are common but you run into rifles and machine guns far more often. Armor is also good for plowing through hastily established obstacles.

Now there are limits and armor does need a lot of infantry support against close in attacks and attacks from above with anti tank weapons. In exercise the US Army found thirty infantrymen per tank was a minimal, if the tank was alone. If you have a group of armored vehicles however they can support each other and you need fewer infantry.

However if you don't have enough infantry that may be wiped out, and then the armor is fucked. That’s why minor probing efforts are a poor idea against heavy resistance; you want a battalion sized task force at least for any operation.

Grozny in 1995-6 was an example of what not to do. The Russians committed several hundred tanks and armored vehicles with no support what so ever, and had them nearly wiped out. One would think they would have learned from Budapest in 1956, when Hungarians rebels destroyed scores of unsupported T-34's before the units where forced to retreat from the city. Course, they came back and reduced the city block by block with an overwhelming combined arms force, and totally unrestrained use of firepower, buildings where destroyed on the suspicion a single sniper might be inside.

[Master of Ossus]

RPG's usually do not have the punch required to get through a MBT's armor. Even a Bradley should be able to withstand RPG fire, and the firepower that they bring is unmatched by anything that infantry soldiers can bring along with them.

[Vympel]

RPG's usually do not have the punch required to get through a MBT's armor. Even a Bradley should be able to withstand RPG fire, and the firepower that they bring is unmatched by anything that infantry soldiers can bring along with them.

It depends on the RPG. Some of the Abrams have definitely been disabled by RPG hits (if reports are true), and the Bradley has less protection- the problem (for the Iraqis) is that their RPG-7s suck. After 1991, captured RPGs were tested and 2 out of 3 didn't detonate- old stocks. They also use the original 85mm PG-7 round, which is way obsolete.

Still, RPG-7 is perfectly capable of slamming through the rear and roof of any armored vehicle anyone cares to name (waits for Shep to come on and be a smartass)

[Pu-239]

I'm guessing that HESH rounds or the latest variant thereof would be of the most use in urban centres. Even then, most of the work will still likely be done by the poor fucking grunts running alongside the tanks.

US doesn't have HESH.

He didn't say the US did, no one has ever designed a smoothbore HESH round and it's the main reason why the Challenger II kept a rifled gun. HESH would be highly effective for urban fighting. The US actually does have something very similar for Stryker, HEP or high explosive plastic. But its anti armor capability is limited. It's mainly designed for knocking holes in walls.

Doesn't a rifled barrel reduce the effectiveness of HEAT rounds shot from it?

[jegs2]

He didn't say the US did, no one has ever designed a smoothbore HESH round and it's the main reason why the Challenger II kept a rifled gun. HESH would be highly effective for urban fighting. The US actually does have something very similar for Stryker, HEP or high explosive plastic. But its anti armor capability is limited. It's mainly designed for knocking holes in walls.

Strykers are armed with a MG or MK-19 (RPG). The "tanker" variant has an AT weapon (TOW).

[Akm72]

I believe so, but the Challenger 2 doesn't use HEAT rounds, using APFSDS types against tanks and HESH against lighter targets.

[jegs2]

While the tanks have only their main guns and MG's, Bradleys are armed with TOW's, along with their 25 mm guns, and they are task-organized with the M1A1's.

[Vympel]

Strykers are armed with a MG or MK-19 (RPG). The "tanker" variant has an AT weapon (TOW).

The Mk-19 in now way qualifies as an RPG. It's a rapid-fire 40mm grenade launcher (AGL, or sometimes GMG). Little, if any, anti-tank ability.

[Sea Skimmer]

Strykers are armed with a MG or MK-19 (RPG). The "tanker" variant has an AT weapon (TOW).

The Mk-19 in now way qualifies as an RPG. It's a rapid-fire 40mm grenade launcher (AGL, or sometimes GMG). Little, if any, anti-tank ability.

There is an anti armor round with a shaped charge that will go through 50mm of RHA.

[jegs2]

The Mk-19 in now way qualifies as an RPG. It's a rapid-fire 40mm grenade launcher (AGL, or sometimes GMG). Little, if any, anti-tank ability.

As I said, the tanker variant has a TOW launcher, which is an AT weapon.

[Vympel]

There is an anti armor round with a shaped charge that will go through 50mm of RHA.

Yeah, but that hardly qualifies as anti-tank capability (well- in WW2 it would've been kick-ass).

[Vympel]

As I said, the tanker variant has a TOW launcher, which is an AT weapon.

Yeah, I was just saying that Mk-19 isn't a rocket propelled grenade, that's all.

I saw a TOW fired at an Iraqi building on the news. They moved MUCH faster than I expected anti-tank missiles to move. It was cool.

[jegs2]

Website on the Stryker family of vehicles -- only two are fielded -- the AT variant is fielded in place of the MGS right now:

http://www.gm-defense.com/products.asp?ProductID=16

[jegs2]

Website on the Stryker family of vehicles -- only two are fielded -- the AT variant is fielded in place of the MGS right now:

http://www.gm-defense.com/products.asp?ProductID=16

May be more than two variants fielded, including command variants, but I tend to count those as the infantry variants. 3/2 IN BDE ran the first SBCT through the NTC -- I'll look for links on that later.

[Sea Skimmer]

As I said, the tanker variant has a TOW launcher, which is an AT weapon.

Yeah, I was just saying that Mk-19 isn't a rocket propelled grenade, that's all.

I saw a TOW fired at an Iraqi building on the news. They moved MUCH faster than I expected anti-tank missiles to move. It was cool.

While TOW is often knocked as being slow, the thing gets to nearly mach 1....

[Sea Skimmer]

The Mk-19 in now way qualifies as an RPG. It's a rapid-fire 40mm grenade launcher (AGL, or sometimes GMG). Little, if any, anti-tank ability.

As I said, the tanker variant has a TOW launcher, which is an AT weapon.

There is a 105mm MGS variant, and a TOW variant with the ITV mount. They share a chassis like all Strykers, but the MGS has considerable differences compared to all other Strykers because of the need to fit a turret.

[jegs2]

Links to stories on 3/2 IN BDE at the NTC:

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Apr20 ... tning.html
http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Apr20 ... gital.html
http://www.bctide.com/newpages/08192002article.shtml
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/732356/posts

Anyone familiar with 4ID, and certainly anyone who's been assigned to that division within the past five years, should recognized much of the "digital speak" found in the above articles. The SBCT (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) took a lot of the work done by 4ID with their Force XXI project, and adapted it to the SBCT proper. An important difference between the SBCT and legacy units is the quick deployability and longer sustainability of the SBCT as a "stand-alone" force within a theater of operations. The SBCT is endowed with much of what only division-level units previously had -- including an organic UAV section and two robust intelligence units.

Strykers are not "fighting" vehicles in the sense that Bradleys are -- Strykers have far less armor, even counting add-on reactive armor. They're designed to transport infantry troops to the center of gravity quickly and then support that dismounted infantry. They certainly can fight by themselves, but that is not their primary function. The SBCT's are specifically designed for MOUT and asymmetrical warfare, from LIC to HIC.

[Sea Skimmer]

Strykers addon armor isn't reactive. In any case, it wont be ready till 2004-5 when all Stryker variants should be combat ready. Until then the Stryker is unlikely to see action.

[Vympel]

My main gripe with Stryker isn't the fact that it's wheeled (there is a crusade against it for this reason alone), it's that they ignored their own requirements for quick deployability- it's not C-130 transportable (partial dissassembly, seperate carrying of some equipment and crew required, hardly fits- requires air force safety waiver), only 2 combat loaded Strykers can fit into a C-17 (four non-combat loaded Strykers- light enough to fit on the rear ramp without breaking the aircraft) etc.

[jegs2]

Strykers addon armor isn't reactive. In any case, it wont be ready till 2004-5 when all Stryker variants should be combat ready. Until then the Stryker is unlikely to see action.

Hmmm, seems like your information may be out of date -- 3/2 will likely be deployed sooner than you believe. Can't give more poop on that due to INFOSEC concerns.