Tanks in street fighting

[Gyrene]

Here's some links to some very interesting articles about the suitability of the use of tanks in street warfare:

http://militaryhistory.about.com/homework/militaryhistory/library/weekly/aa012300a.htm?once=true&

And a counter point:

http://www.specialoperations.com/mout/twocities.html

Altough not specific to WWII it does apply to CM in general and its good reading nevertheless.

Gyrene

[Maastrictian]

I would tend to agree with the second article. I'm not familiar with the battles refferenced in Grozny, but it sounds like tanks were used with no suporting infantry -- or at least no suporting *dismounted* infantry. As any one who plays CM knows you don't keep the infantry in halftracks when going into a city. I would tend to agree with the second article that DF suport from tanks is crucial to the sucess of infantry, just as infantry is crucial to tripping AT ambushes.

Both interesting articles though!

--Chris

[Pvt.Tom]

This may be a dumb question but where on that web site is the first article? I don't see anything on that page relating to tanks in urban combat.

Thanks

[gunnergoz]

Grozny was a prime example of misguided politics impacting a military campaign.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

"...a tank crew always loses to brave soldiers defending their city streets. It's not a matter of brute force; it's a pure tactical issue. A tank crew can't see soldiers waiting for tanks to blunder below, setting up a perfect top-down shot from a window with a handheld anti-tank rocket. The blind tank is more vulnerable than the nimble rebel who waits to ambush from tunnels and alleys."

Unfortunately for use mouse wielding generals the above is almost impossible to recreate in wargaming. One unit sees for all units in wargames. How often have you set up an ambush in a Tactical game such as CM only to have it foiled by the instantaneous reaction of all enemy units suddenly seeing the ambusher and opening fire on it. Someone wood-be game designer really needs to site down and think about line of sight and reaction times for units.

[Skipper]

Grozny was a prime example of intelligence screwup, guys.

Tanks entered the city in marching column formations, to assume controlling positions on crossroads and such. Most tanks carried no active armor. There were no dismounted infantry covering the tanks. They did not expect organised resistance at all.

Red Army acquired a lot of experience in city fighting during WWII, and they did not shy away from using tanks in urban combat. Especially, in 1944-45. Normally, an individual tank, sometimes two, would be attached to an assault groop - ex, SMG platoon, tank, light AT gun. There is nothing like a 120 mm HE round to take out an MG nest on the top floor.

[Robert Mayer]

Well, with relative spotting we should be seeing better ambushes, I hope....

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Matthew_Ridgeway:

How often have you set up an ambush in a Tactical game such as CM only to have it foiled by the instantaneous reaction of all enemy units suddenly seeing the ambusher and opening fire on it.

Yes! We have here yet another vote for relative spotting. The crusade continues....

[russellmz]

Originally posted by Skipper:

Grozny was a prime example of intelligence screwup, guys.

Tanks entered the city in marching column formations, to assume controlling positions on crossroads and such. Most tanks carried no active armor. There were no dismounted infantry covering the tanks.

doesn't reactive armor precluse the use of dismounted infantry?(shrapnel from the reactive armor when tanks get hit)

------------------

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Head Mahone]

I remember watching those poor Russian bastards getting chewed to pieces. The problem is they have a horrible government, and that they wasted all of their money on their space program and submarines. Their generals are piss-poor and so are most of their equipment and tactics. They showed those tanks on the news in freakin columns just driving into town. It was like they thought the rebels would just say "OH CRAP, TANKS" and give up! It was pathetic, just PATHETIC.....

-Head

------------------

"I don't need my junkie friends all knockin' at my door. I just wanna do an old time waltz with a buxom Irish whore!"

-Shane MacGowan

[This message has been edited by Head Mahone (edited 04-04-2001).]

[Forever Babra]

Originally posted by russellmz:

doesn't reactive armor precluse the use of dismounted infantry?(shrapnel from the reactive armor when tanks get hit)

There isn't much shrapnel effect from reactive armour. It is still dangerous, but by keeping a safe distance and/or in cover, the infantry is not unduly threatened.

[Skipper]

> they wasted all of their money on their

> space program and submarines.

Space? You know, pal, life is not about money. Submarines? Not a major program. Much more money were wasted on tanks.

> Their generals are piss-poor and so are

> most of their equipment and tactics.

Hmm... you know, it is not the best army in the world, but not the worst, either. Far from it. Apparently, it was good enough in Chechnya-99. Moreover, it was even good enough in Chechnya-95, all major centers in the province were taken. However, the country was not ready to go all the way through with the military solution. The only result was few thousand more dead people five years later on.

Moreover, all three major peacekeeping (peaceMAKING, actually) operations of the russian army in the last decade were successful: Tadjikistan, Abhazia, Karabah. In all three cases we are talking about big conflicts, tens of thousand combatants, tanks, artillery and all such crap. All three wars stopped. How is that for a track record?

> It was like they thought the rebels would

> just say "OH CRAP, TANKS" and give up!

It was exactly what they expected. Too much reliance on past experiences, such as Czechoslovakia.

> It was pathetic, just PATHETIC.....

Hindsight 20/20, anyone? Imagine yourself the same troops entering the city in assault formations and meeting no resistance.

[Michael Dorosh]

A billion years from now, when the Sun is ready to blow up and the human race realizes that it needs to move to another solar system in order to continue its existence, what will they look at in the 20th Century - how many tanks the world built, or will they be looking at the genesis of space travel and exploration?

I am hoping that someday, man will look back at such disgusting concepts as machine-guns and tanks and shake his head, not really understanding why we spent so much time, energy and money coming up with new ways to kill each other.

To say that space travel is somehow less noble, or even less important, than building tanks (whose sole purpose is to assist in the murder of other humans) really smacks of ignorance in mythical proportions.

[busboy]

Michael, war is indeed horrible, but it is also inevitable. As long as man is man, there will be war. Every time war "has been abolished" it has merely returned with suprise. George Washington said "in times of peace, prepare for war." Any nation that does not prepare for the posability of hostile agression will surely and rightly be conquered if they are threatened.

War should be avoided if possible. However, that does not make preperation for war a dishonorable persuit. Weapons are not made for the killing of humans, they are made for the protection of humans. I guess thats a "half full or half empty" philosophy. However, as long as man is man, there will be war. To embrace the way of blissfully-ignorant-but -well-meaning-pacifist is a great crime.

We should always be pro-peace, but never anti-war.

------------------

busboy

CO, 99th Dragons

A Warbirds Squadron

'We will heat you up'

"It is well that war is so terrible, else we would grow too fond of it."

-Robert E. Lee

[Hamsters]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A billion years from now, when the Sun is ready to blow up and the human race realizes that it needs to move to another solar system in order to continue its existence, what will they look at in the 20th Century - how many tanks the world built, or will they be looking at the genesis of space travel and exploration?

I am hoping that someday, man will look back at such disgusting concepts as machine-guns and tanks and shake his head, not really understanding why we spent so much time, energy and money coming up with new ways to kill each other.

To say that space travel is somehow less noble, or even less important, than building tanks (whose sole purpose is to assist in the murder of other humans) really smacks of ignorance in mythical proportions.

Here, here, Michael. Let's just reduce that billion years requirement and make it 20 years, ok?

[harpooner]

Hamsters is a gerbil....Bwa-ha-ha

------------------

"So be cheery, my lads, let your hearts never fail,

While the bold harpooner is striking the whale!" -Nantucket Song

[Hamsters]

Not a gerbil, you mook, just your better.

[This message has been edited by Hamsters (edited 04-04-2001).]

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Skipper:

... Normally, an individual tank ... would be attached to an assault groop ...

There is nothing like a 120 mm HE round to take out an MG nest on the top floor.

The problem is that many tanks can't elevate the gun enough to hit the top floor at the short range available.

Armoured artillery, OTOH...

Remember the scene in "The Beast" where the tank tries to hit some rebel on top of a cliff, but the bullets all hit two feet below...

Cheers

Olle

[Shriker]

Re: funding Space vs. Weapons/War

It could be argued that both are equally important in our goal of interstellar travel. If we venture out and meet another Race, who will ALSO be the dominant species on their own Planet, we must be able to defend ourselves. If we pour all our money into Space travel without equally sophisticated weaponry, we're taking the chance that will be leading ourselves to the slaughter. There are apparently some scientists that are less than comfortable with even our current feeble attempts to make contact with Alien Races (i.e. sending out space probes, monitoring for interstellar signals, etc). As the dominant Species on their planet, any Race that picks up on our presence may decide to crush us while they have the chance.

Although I'd be more than happy to have the Human Race join a "Federation of Planets" and live in peaceful harmony, we should at least be prepared to display a formidable "fist" if required.

And to keep this "on topic", when will we see a CM version that allows us to battle with near and distant future weaponry and units? Power Armor and hover tanks, that's what I want!

-Steve

[Skipper]

LOL

When are we going to see a CM version that will allow us to battle with aliens?!!

The universe seems to be too vast, the distances between stars are long and the levels of energy required to transport something big from one star to another within a reasonable time are, in all likelihood, huge. Even trading, let alone wars, will probably be impossible. Exchange of knowledge, on the other hand...

> The problem is that many tanks can't

> elevate the gun enough to hit the top

> floor at the short range available.

Nevertheless, they could be used, and were used to a great effect in urban combat.

SP guns were used as well. They have their own shortcomings in that setting, in melee situations a fast turret may be a real blessing.

[Head Mahone]

To Skipper and Michael,

Don't put words in my mouth, and in no way was I trying to degrade THE Space program. Russia, with the incredible potential it has and its disgusting mafia run government, simply lead its troops to the slaughter time and time again. I don't think this was intentional either. I have a friend who has lived in Mother Russia for some time. They BLEW their money racing the United States to the Moon and flexing their nuclear muscle at us with their subs. In return, proper funding was not given for the training of their troops. This is so evident!

As far as their equipment is concerned, IT SUCKS. Sure it was more than enough to kill the rebels, but it still sucks. As the M1 tank commander at work said "We where poppin' T-62s in Iraq from 4000m, they never even new it." And as one of our retired Generals said on the O' Riley Factor the other night, "The only military worse then China's is Russia's."

I'll never forget the documentary I watched of Russian combat camera footage. Whole platoons would go into hot zones to kill rebels, they’d get overpowered, told they would be air-lifted out, waited at the LZ and no one ever came. This happened over and over again while whole platoons where slowly eaten alive. And no I don't think they have a good track record Skipper.....

-Head

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Head Mahone ]

[Dan Weaver]

Totally OT:

Actually, the Soviet space program was sane. Ours, pre-Viking and Pioneer, was dumb...the Apollo program was a giant publicity stunt and not much else. While we were sending a few fighter jocks to play golf on the moon, they were collecting all sorts of useful scientific data.

Let's just count the total of successful Russian space stations (7) versus successful American space stations (1).

Their space program wasn't "dumb". It was an inspiration and one of the few bright spots in an otherwise throughly depressing regime.

[Head Mahone]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dan Weaver:

Totally OT:

Actually, the Soviet space program was sane. Ours, pre-Viking and Pioneer, was dumb...the Apollo program was a giant publicity stunt and not much else. While we were sending a few fighter jocks to play golf on the moon, they were collecting all sorts of useful scientific data.

Let's just count the total of successful Russian space stations (7) versus successful American space stations (1).

Their space program wasn't "dumb". It was an inspiration and one of the few bright spots in an otherwise throughly depressing regime.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that it wasn't a success, or that it wasn't sane Dan.

To all who read this, I am just giving my opinion of why I think Russia's military sucks. They didn't give it enough funding partially due to their Space program.

-Head