Fighting in Urban Areas with Tanks...
-
Found an interesting article:
Modifying the Abrams Tank
For Fighting in Urban Areas
by Sergeant First Class Ira L. Partridge
The regimental commander was discussing the problems tanks might encounter in urban situations: “If we found ourselves in action in Bosnia, or in a new Somalia or Chechen-like scenario, how fast could we deploy a few M1 tanks that were specially modified for MOUT? A few of the right vehicles could make a big difference....”
He then suggested some features that would not cost much to add to the M1-series:
• A precision mounted .50 caliber capable of taking out a sniper at long range
• Grenade launchers that fire high explosive rounds
• Fiber-optic cameras to provide a buttoned-up crew a full range of view
• An automatic 7.62mm gun turret for the TC or loader’s hatch, capable of being aimed and fired from under armor
• Additional spaced armor on the turret
roof
• A new canister round in the basic
load
“These improvements could be accomplished fast in an emergency deployment,” he said. “If we work on the prototype now, and put some ideas to
work, we can make this a real option if
it is needed.”
Armor leaders have long acknowledged that the Abrams main battle tank (MBT) may have to fight in an urban environment, a mission commonly referred to as Military Operations in Urban Terrain (MOUT). But it took until May of 2000 for the Army to open the first MOUT city specifically designed to train mounted warriors with Abrams tanks, along with the other members of
the combined arms team.
Two Ways to Approach MOUT Tactics
A combined arms team should always
be the primary maneuver force in
MOUT environments. The tank’s inherent features — a large caliber precision cannon, several machine guns mounted in stable cradles carrying more ammunition than two squads of infantry, and a moveable protective barrier — would be an undeniable asset to this combined arms team. Fighting in MOUT is slow and deliberate, regardless of the care given to protecting the force or civilian population. MOUT fighting also presents many tactical problems. The Israeli
Defense Force (IDF) and the Russian
Army are forces that have both recently conducted combat in MOUT environments, with each using fundamentally different tactics.
At one end of the spectrum are the
tactics used by the Russians in Chechnya. During combat operations between 1994 and 1996, the Russians suffered devastating losses in city fighting due to badly defined strategy, poor tactical maneuver, and inadequately protected vehicles. Their tactical solution, however, came at a price that would appall most Western powers. Russian forces, towards the end of the first Chechen war, adopted a scorched earth policy similar to tactics used during World War II. Air power and artillery were liberally used to reduce urban environments to rubble before maneuver forces would enter to mop things up.
The Russian weapon of choice for urban warfare in Chechnya seems to be the TOS-1 heavy flamethrower system, designed to defeat targets with the effects of high temperature and extreme pressure by firing 30 incendiary rockets singularly or in salvo.1 TOS-1s and
massed artillery became a way for the Russians to achieve a “bloodless” victory — for them. This combination of TOS-1s and artillery is capable of releasing
large clouds of flammable gas
and creating massive blasts that incinerate buildings and people.2 In the second Chechen war, Russian tactics have been similar. The following excerpt describes the outcome:
“Today, Grozny is no more. The
contrast between the damaged
Grozny before the latest battle
and the utter destruction afterwards could not be more pronounced. The literal leveling of the city points to lessons that the Russian Armed Forces learned
from their earlier battles for
Grozny.”
By removing the urban from urbanenvironment, Russian forces reduced the tactical problem presented and created a more favorable battlefield.
Israeli forces, on the other hand, demonstrated in the 1982 Lebanon campaign that MOUT operations are able to achieve tactical success without indiscriminate destruction or civilian casualties.
They learned that, in MOUT, infantry must advance dismounted as part of a combined arms team, and operational timetables cannot be set to keep pace with mounted maneuver forces.
By surrounding and isolating large urban areas, the IDF took a slow, deliberate, and systematic approach to successfully clear cities. Dividing and subdividing the MOUT into areas that were subsequently reduced using direct and indirect coordinated fires spared unnecessary collateral damage to property and the civilian population. If faced with a similar tactical fight in MOUT, the U.S. Army would likely use similar tactics.
But tactics and training are not the only areas the Army will have to master to succeed in MOUT as part of the combined arms team. Systems and components — preferably “off the shelf”— will be needed to improve the fightability and survivability of the Abrams tank in a MOUT environment.
The most effective combat technique
in MOUT fighting is for tanks and infantry to work together as part of a combined arms team. MOUT is not just an infantry problem, and effective use of armor in MOUT quickly becomes an issue when bullets are flying. According
to published doctrine, armored vehicles will face a variety of tactical problems and possibilities in MOUT environments. Issues like restricted movement, complicated and confused
command and control, and the canalizing
effects presented by buildings
will be unlike maneuvering in open
terrain. Additionally, the Abrams tank
has limitations imposed by its design — the first being its sheer size. Most tankers know first-hand the challenges of trying to negotiate a street or town with a behemoth 70 times larger than the typical vehicle. In addition, the
main gunÂ’s limits of elevation and depression
— and the traversing restrictions
imposed by narrow streets — will
hamper its effectiveness against targets in tall buildings and basements. A third problem is the dead space in the area immediately surrounding the tank. This dead space falls between the sides and
rear of the tank and the closest point
that can be seen through the vision
blocks. Another problem in the MOUT
environment is the tankÂ’s exposure to attack from above, which is an area that is not as heavily armored as the tankÂ’s frontal armor.
....
....
http://call.army.mil/products/mout/misc-pubs/4mouttank.pdf[/b] -
maybe even a shorter main gun that is mounted to be able to raise up higher but have limited angle down as the MG's can handle that.....a special tank varient so to speak.
-
I think if we really go and design something like what was discussed, it will be a single-mission tank with high tech Vision (for enhanced SA). But the hull shape will probably look like a WWII German SPG!!!Originally posted by |-|05|:maybe even a shorter main gun that is mounted to be able to raise up higher but have limited angle down as the MG's can handle that.....a special tank varient so to speak.
-
lol errr i was thinking more of the erm......IS-2 kinda thing but with the gun mounted farther up but of the same size maybe? And yes it would be a 1 use tank only...unless maybe they make a special turrent and gun where by the gun can be removed and replaced with an arty gun converting it into a mobile arty system cum Urban tankOriginally posted by spencer99:I think if we really go and design something like what was discussed, it will be a single-mission tank with high tech Vision (for enhanced SA). But the hull shape will probably look like a WWII German SPG!!! -
By surrounding and isolating large urban areas, the IDF took a slow, deliberate, and systematic approach to successfully clear cities.
Therein lies our problem, we will not have the luxury of time if we have to fight in an urban area. Long fight = war of attrition = overwhealming loss of life = possible defeat. -
Aiyah, why bother with mgs to cover dead space? Have motion detector anti personnel claymores strapped to the hull or grenade launchers that surround the tank with WP. Dun worry about friendly troops, if the enemy can get to your dead space it means that your friendlies are probably not around liao.
-
err......no if during a fire fight 1 of those things cook off your friendlies would be dead.And those tanks would most prob be used as support for the infantry not the other way round just like SP gunsOriginally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Aiyah, why bother with mgs to cover dead space? Have motion detector anti personnel claymores strapped to the hull or grenade launchers that surround the tank with WP. Dun worry about friendly troops, if the enemy can get to your dead space it means that your friendlies are probably not around liao. -
well, u just got to find a way to make it not cook off, pront? sure beats machine guns which you have to physically mount and use, and then again, it can't possibly cover the entire tank.
-
What if you install high pressure water guns and blast enemies that are close by? Oh yeah I would like to ask, are flamethrowers banned in warfare? They might make a good weapon in FIBUA...
-
Do what Abrams tank crew do... when enemy infantry is trying to sneak up on you... gun the engine and let the turbine exaust do the rest.
Or fire the main gun, concuss anybody nearby. -
I am thinking that the Isareli Merkeva tanks can be suitable for the SAF. Because these tanks are designed for urban armour operations, It can be adapted for jungle warfare just like what we did to the ex-Swedish submarines which are designed for cold climate.Further more the size and weight of these tanks are lighter that that of most MBTs. I personally think that it will be a great replacement for the venerable AMX-13SM1. What do you guys think?
-
flamethrowers are supposedly banned under the geneva convention... just as minefields have to be mapped and marked out and medics are not supposed to be deliberately targeted...Originally posted by SingaporeMacross:What if you install high pressure water guns and blast enemies that are close by? Oh yeah I would like to ask, are flamethrowers banned in warfare? They might make a good weapon in FIBUA...
i don't think any arm force in the world deploys them openly, but push comes to shove, i don't believe it.
how about deploying stun pods tied to sensors around the chasis of an MBT so that when someone who tries to climb onto the side to pop a grenade down the hatch will gets a rude shock instead? -
Conventional ways fighting in Fibua might not be necessary any more if ST Spartans RAV is around....
Let say we could deploy a section of Spartans say 7-9 veh , all armed differently , for eg 4-5 "foot soldier" RAVs armed with AGL/rifles,1-2 "Gunner" armed with GPMGs & 1-2 "anti tanks/bunkers" armed with Spike missiles twin lanucher.
With their elevated optics camera with IR imaging sensor, they could fight under cover and with their armor to withstand round up to 7.62mm and with high speed they will be extremely difficult to "kill".
With Apaches/Fennecs supporting from the air for difficult target.
This combination hypothically could clear a city block infested with a platoon/coy within an hour.
All of the above is purely my imagination, but what ST has developed & with current technology, this is either in the pipeline or already in existance., is just matter of time.Therefore foot soldier like us will not be in the harm way in future Fibua warfare -
Future warfare will be like an "ultimate" Virtual Warfare Gaming, in which one IT Specialist Soldier will use a PC to monitor, update data and send comands to a fleet of these "SPARTANS" robotic vehicles to engage the enemy positions.Originally posted by gary1910:Conventional ways fighting in Fibua might not be necessary any more if ST Spartans RAV is around....
Let say we could deploy a section of Spartans say 7-9 veh , all armed differently , for eg 4-5 "foot soldier" RAVs armed with AGL/rifles,1-2 "Gunner" armed with GPMGs & 1-2 "anti tanks/bunkers" armed with Spike missiles twin lanucher.
With their elevated optics camera with IR imaging sensor, they could fight under cover and with their armor to withstand round up to 7.62mm and with high speed they will be extremely difficult to "kill".
With Apaches/Fennecs supporting from the air for difficult target.
This combination hypothically could clear a city block infested with a platoon/coy within an hour.
All of the above is purely my imagination, but what ST has developed & with current technology, this is either in the pipeline or already in existance., is just matter of time.Therefore foot soldier like us will not be in the harm way in future Fibua warfare : )
Overhead UAV's and satellites will give an overhead panaramic view of the battle ground, and a section of IT Specialists - each man controlling one section of "SPARTANS" - will have a strength and fire power of One Company.
Start practising on War Games such as "Command and Conquer" and the likes of it. -
The Spartan and the RAV are two different things. But both are not really suitable for urban warfare. Too fragile and immobile. A LAW or RPG will knock them out. They will find it hard to climb stairs or ladders. You will still need the infantry.
If you want a tank which can elevate its gun high enough to engage targets on upper floors, you are basically talking about a mortar. To me, the best urban tank would be a heavily armored mortar carrier with multiple MGs. Something like an MBT body with an AMOS 120mm dual automatic mortar turret, with three or more MGs or autocannons for defense. We could convert some of our Centurions to this configuration. You need the armor to absorb RPGs (one Challenger 2 tank in Iraq took 70 RPGs in Basra and survived).
This kills two birds with one stone. The problem with MBTs like Merkava in our terrain is their poor mobility due to their weight. However, if the vehicle is also capable of performing long-range mortar missions, mobility becomes less important. Basically, it serves behind the lines as an SP indirect fire mortar until urban combat is encountered, then it drives into the city and supports the infantry with direct fire from the mortar and its MGs, with thick armor for protection against enemy infantry.
How does this sound to the tankers here? I am an infantryman, so maybe this is complete bull. I would appreciate if a tanker could comment on this. -
got a silly question.... if it is hostile territory, why not just blow the whole place to kingdom come?
-
There is a difference between destruction and conquest. If the USA wanted to destroy IRAQ or Afghanistan, they will just drop bombs, kill everything that moves. Instead, they sent in the troops and sustained casulties from hit and run attacks.
-
Future warfare will be like an "ultimate" Virtual Warfare Gaming, in which one IT Specialist Soldier will use a PC to monitor, update data and send comands to a fleet of these "SPARTANS" robotic vehicles to engage the enemy positions.
But wouldn't a simple jamming device be sufficient to disable these tanks? EMP perhaps?
Overhead UAV's and satellites will give an overhead panaramic view of the battle ground, and a section of IT Specialists - each man controlling one section of "SPARTANS" - will have a strength and fire power of One Company.
Start practising on War Games such as "Command and Conquer" and the likes of it.
Seems rather dangerous to send a company worth in and see them get knocked out with a single EMP, not to mention they'd still react slower than a human -
Spartan Is a jeep like veh which could be remotely controlled,a fighting version could be constructed with better amour(Kevlar) & armanent,take away the seat for the driver and installed overhead weapons system with better optics camera.
Since one could remotely control a veh like Spartan , you easily control some additional automatic weapons like the the AGL, automatic rifles,GPMG & Spikes missiles which are much easier since they r all automatic weapons, all you need to cock it b4 mission , the trigger r remotely control.
The purpose of all these Spartan RAVs are to be point section, secure all corner and main street b4 the real troop move in to prevent ambush.
If the enemy expose their position , the RAVs(I term all land remote veh as RAV for easy reference),will engage them instead of real troops.
They will surround the building & gave them all they got.
If the are on the high floor , call in the Apaches/Fennecs.
After the fire die down , the troop will move in with little toy tank RAVs, but instead of troop move in first , small RAVs will moved to recon every rooms, corners etc , armed will a small guns to engage any remaining enemy & destroying any booby traps.
In this way, it will reduce the risk in fighting FIBUA, high fatality in FIBUA is usually due to enemy ambush and booby traps ,therefore with RAVs as "point", all these are greatly reduced.
Is these all possible, I say YES if ST could remotely control a Jeep, it could add on what I stated above.It will be the new doctrine for all modern armies for FIBUA -
Also watch out for micro UAVs...
I envision that all these platforms will be networked to provide us with a 24/hour real time coverage of the battlespace that was not possible before... now you can engage targets even though u don't see them directly. -
Quote from dkhoo:
Do you really believe what is stated on the paper where Spartan is used for special transport & RAV is for special recon....
Their names have already given away their true purpose, Spartans , the name for the ancient Greek warrior tribe, all boys r trained to be warrior from young.
RAV(Remote Attack Vehicles), did they said "ATTACK" !!!!
Don't be so naive to believe what they said to the press
Spartans r for open ground operation & RAVs which could climb stairs as stated in the paper r for indoor operation(otherwise why design them to be able to climb stairs)
Let me speculate how the whole thing work for a special battalion.
The HQ will be assigned with UAVs for ground survelliance.The CO & all his Staff officer will be in aircon command armor truck becos it house many PCs & the like for command & control.
Each coy will be assigned with one RAVs section commandered by Coy 2IC , he will control a grp of IT Combat Specialist which each spec will control one of the Spartan & all will be in aircon command armour truck as Coy HQ .
The three platoons of infantry will still be there but will be on the field behind the Spartans.
Each platoon will have the same three sections but each platoon has been assigned with 2-3 special attached soldiers, they will carry a remote controller with monitor to control the tiny RAV for clearing buildings.
The battalion might also be assigned a few tanks & certainly attack helos & also be able to call in air strilke if necessary.
Far fetch? not if what ST is developing... -
The applications of such technology are immense... expect to see them fill many roles in the future.
-
The RAVs look very useful for taking the point and entering buildings before the infantry, but I would expect heavy losses. Even a 40mm M203 grenade or hand grenade would result in a certain mission kill at least (if not a hard kill), not to mention automatic fire or LAWs. The Spartan could maybe mount some armor, but due to its larger profile I would also not put its battlefield lifetime at anything more than a few minutes in an urban scenario. It will certainly not survive a LAW, and grenades would probably mission kill it too. Still better than losing men definitely, but not cost efficient.
The problem with unmanned platforms is how easily mission killed they are. Things come loose or jam in any weapon system, particularly in combat. Unlike a manned platform where the crew can perform recovery drills, an unmanned platform cannot recover from faults unless that capability is built into it, which comes at a cost. For example, if an MG on a RAV jams, it has to drive back to base for someone to clear it, unless it has a jam clearing machine, which means more weight and something else to break. It is definitely not just cock the weapon and go. If a weapon impact breaks the optics, disables communications or destroys a servo, the whole system is rendered useless unless it has spares, which means more weight and cost again. If you think that machines are reliable, you need to spend more time working with them.
That is why as far as unmanned platforms for land combat are concerned, I prefer simple, cheap and numerous devices until the technology matures. My thinking is that since machines are unreliable, a large number of redundant systems should be employed, which means they need to be simple and cheap. Micro UAVs to perform recce. Stationary gun turrets to perform sentry duty or spring ambushes (think of the movie Aliens). Smart land mines. Small remote sensors you can drop on the floor or stick to a wall. That sort of thing. -
ST and assorted companies are way ahead of you... The unmanned units are designed to be cheap, using off the shelf tech. Also, there are plans to have the more expensive UVs carry smaller and more expendable units to deploy into battlespace.
RAVs are suppose to supplent troops currently, not replace them. They may not be able to take a LAW or grenade, but they can wade into small-arms relatively unharmed. A great asset if you want to look around the corner without risking men. After all, a soldier takes tons of cash to train, not to mention being hard to replace. All you need are raw materials for a UV.