Urban Combat and Tanks in Baghdad

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-07 10:17am

Vympel wrote: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.

And that is a greatly shared set of gripes -- this was Shinseki's baby from the beginning...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-07 10:20am

jegs2 wrote: And that is a greatly shared set of gripes -- this was Shinseki's baby from the beginning...

He's on the way out, isn't he?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-07 10:23am

Vympel wrote:
jegs2 wrote: And that is a greatly shared set of gripes -- this was Shinseki's baby from the beginning...

He's on the way out, isn't he?

I haven't heard specifically, but he's been CoS for a while now, so his time should be just about finished...

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-07 10:49am

The reason why RPGs have not been very effective in Iraq

1: A lot of them (indeed, most) that I've seen, don't have the optical sights.

2: This example has a Chinese HE round. Not very effective against armor. I've also mentioned that the RPG stocks are old and weren't very reliable back in 1991.

In short- not even your Soviet standard RPGs (and let's not even talk about modern Russian). Too bad for the Iraqis

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-04-07 11:08am

Vympel wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote: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)

Well, yeah, RPG's can get through MBT armor if you use the "put me in the perfect position and don't ask how I got here" technique, but during the war, thus far, VERY few tanks have been destroyed by RPG fire, despite the vast numbers used against American and British MBT's. In practical conditions, you'd have to get pretty lucky to get a good RPG shot at most armored vehicles, particularly since these appear well supported with infantry. I understand that the weapons are very difficult to aim effectively, also, meaning that you have to get pretty close.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-04-07 11:20am

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how military buffs spend their time... And, we're walking, and walking...

(please, back on topic, people!)

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-07 11:28am

Master of Ossus wrote:
Well, yeah, RPG's can get through MBT armor if you use the "put me in the perfect position and don't ask how I got here" technique

It is very easy for an infantryman to maneuver himself to hit a tank with a manpack AT weapon- see WW2 (Panzerfausts), Vietnam (RPG-2) Arab-Israeli (RPG-7), and Chechnya 94-96 (also RPG-7). This isn't exactly Trektard wanking

Tanks have piss poor close-quarters vision and supporting infantry aren't perfect- in urban combat, it's a nightmare for tanks. If you unbutton, it presents you with the problem of being killed, like the sniper who killed the driver of the M1 and resulted in the tank crashing into the water and drowning the remaining 3 crew.

but during the war, thus far, VERY few tanks have been destroyed by RPG fire, despite the vast numbers used against American and British MBT's.

Most are crap- either they're the wrong warheads, or they're old and don't even explode.

In practical conditions, you'd have to get pretty lucky to get a good RPG shot at most armored vehicles, particularly since these appear well supported with infantry.

Point on the infantry, but you don't need that much luck to stick a grenade in the side hull of a tank.

I understand that the weapons are very difficult to aim effectively, also, meaning that you have to get pretty close.

I wouldn't say 'very difficult'- for these Iraqis its pretty pathetic, they're using shit launchers with crap grenades which lack both the optical sights and even basic iron sights- it's no wonder they're not hitting anything, and when they do it's a crapshoot if the thing will go off. It's purely a question of good quality RPGs and some standard Soviet conscript training (most Chechen rebels in 94-96 were former Red Army, and they were quite accurate).

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-07 11:30am

Warspite wrote:And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how military buffs spend their time... And, we're walking, and walking...

(please, back on topic, people!)

It is on topic. RPGs are incredibly relevant to tanks and urban combat.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2003-04-07 11:45am

Okay, the original question was whether or not it was a good tactical decision to send MBT's and other AFV's into Baghdad. You've just admitted that the weapons the Iraqis have are probably not good enough to consistently kill tanks (and I question the effectiveness of RPG fire against side-arcs of tank armor), which basically means that the American decision was good, since the Iraqis can't kill tanks reliably and tanks offer significant firepower that infantry cannot carry by themselves. So what are we arguing about, exactly? You seem to hold the position that I do.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-04-07 01:07pm

Master of Ossus wrote:Okay, the original question was whether or not it was a good tactical decision to send MBT's and other AFV's into Baghdad. You've just admitted that the weapons the Iraqis have are probably not good enough to consistently kill tanks (and I question the effectiveness of RPG fire against side-arcs of tank armor), which basically means that the American decision was good, since the Iraqis can't kill tanks reliably and tanks offer significant firepower that infantry cannot carry by themselves. So what are we arguing about, exactly? You seem to hold the position that I do.

Erm- we were arguing?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-07 03:27pm

Vympel wrote: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)

The question is, does that actually matter? It only takes 17 minutes to get the thing ready for action again. If you don't have that much time, then chances are your not going to be landing C-130's on that strip anyway.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-04-07 03:29pm

Vympel wrote:
I wouldn't say 'very difficult'- for these Iraqis its pretty pathetic, they're using shit launchers with crap grenades which lack both the optical sights and even basic iron sights- it's no wonder they're not hitting anything, and when they do it's a crapshoot if the thing will go off. It's purely a question of good quality RPGs and some standard Soviet conscript training (most Chechen rebels in 94-96 were former Red Army, and they were quite accurate).

Thus the most important aspect of light anti tank weapons, you can fire them like shotgun shells. The rounds cost something like 20 dollars. Got 1% accuracy? Just fire 100 of them...