Six misses equals one hit.

[Jasper]

Don't know if this is consistant with other findings, but figured the ballistic crowd may find this interesting.

<HR>

Armor in the land Battle

Digested by tbe MILITARYREVIEW from an article by Msjm General H. E. Pyman

in the "Journal of the Royal United Service Institution', (Great Britain) May 1954.

THE

We carry too much tank ammunition

within an armored division. Great strides

have been made in the accuracy of tank

gunnery eince the end of World War H.

In considering armor- piercing shot, as a

rough calculation it took seven rounds in

World War II to hit an enemy tank in

a tank versns tank encounter. Any grinner

who takes three shots to deaI with his

target today has nothing to be proud of

at all. An armored division carries 15,000

rounds of armor- piercing shot in first

and second lines. Theoretically— very the-oretically—

that means that it can fire all

that ammunition within 24 hours and in

that time should destroy 5,000 tanks. If

in any 24 hours my division could destroy

one- tenth of that figure, I would die a

happy man.

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

Check out http://www.geocities.com/funfacts2001/ or

http://hyperion.spaceports.com/~funfacts/ for military documents written during WWII.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I saw that 7 rounds/kill figure quoted in S&T many moons ago. They also gave 500 meters as the normal range for tank vs. tank duels. In lieu of more authoritive figures, I accepted those. Stong arguments presented on this board have challenged both those figures, though I suspect the 7rounds/kill is pretty accurate for all armies averaged out over the whole war.

Michael

[Guest machineman]

Just reading through 'Death Traps' and the author recounts the Germans, given the chance, not being content with knocking a tank out but repeatedly hitting it until it burned, with the result of making the wreck unrecoverable.

[I/O Error]

Quoted from Msjm General H. E. Pyman

:

We carry too much tank ammunition

within an armored division

Quoted from my Dad:

Son, there are three things you can never have enough of:

Ammo, pussy, and booze.

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

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

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

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Jasper:

We carry too much tank ammunition

within an armored division...

An armored division carries 15,000 rounds of armor- piercing shot in first and second lines. Theoretically— very theoretically— that means that it can fire all that ammunition within 24 hours and in that time should destroy 5,000 tanks. If in any 24 hours my division could destroy one-tenth of that figure, I would die a happy man.

This has to be one of the silliest things I've read from a professional warrior for ages. In his defense he does say "very theoretically" - but there's theoretically and downright goofy.

It presumes that every shell gets fired. I would think the enemy might have something to say about this. Between killing tanks,killing ammo supplies, and just avoiding being where the Brit tanks are just might mean a lot of those 15,000 shells won't get fired.

It would be interesting to look at rates of tank ammo consumption in the Gulf to see how real-world figures compare with this sort of back of the envelope calculation.

[I/O Error]

Well, in NATO's case during the Gulf War, where we had complete air superiority, perfectly protected supply lines, a poorly led enemy, and months of peaceful preperation time, the numbers of consumption were pretty good. We could never expect that to happen so easily again.

In a REAL war where the situation is much more "fluid", you are simply not going to be able to depend completely on your supply train.

(modern artillery + modern air strike packages + still depending on old-style Deuce and a half trucks = Millions of dollars of destroyed and lost equipment is assumed to be NORMAL)

I personally think this guy was nuts, ESPECIALLY back in 1954. Somebody should have smacked him during his presentation.

P.S. notice my "colorful" quote up above. What can you never have too much of?

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

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

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

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"

[This message has been edited by I/O Error (edited 02-07-2001).]

[Jarmo]

Is that 7 rounds average to hit, or to kill?

There's a slight difference. Especially if you are a tanker.

[Dar]

Sorry. I think that (the original quote) is a load of crap. Things change in war, and hardly ever for the better.

When you've got an enemy shooting at you, piss running down your leg, your optics and machinery damaged from hits and large caliber HE near-misses, your seat stained with the blood of the last unfortunate soul you replaced, and you're trying to remember how to operate the optics and gun traverse you learned all about in your 48 hours of training before entering the replacement pool, then let's see how many shots you need!

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

Dar

[Michael Dorosh]

I posted some figures elsewhere from George Forty - 15,000 tank kills were investigated, and it was four rounds to kill a Tiger (IIRC) and 1.2 to kill a Pz IV - and about 1 to 1.2 rounds to kill a Sherman.

That's only counting hits, though - not shots. Jarmo makes an excellent point. There was no way of knowing how many shots were fired at the targets - just how many hit.

Was the Iraqi Army really badly led? I don't imagine Saddam was a genius but I have no knowledge of battalion or brigade/regiment commanders. I know their troops seemed most unwilling. I felt sorry for them - fighting for 8 years against Iran and getting nowhere, and then to go toe-to-toe with not only most of their neighbours, but the world powers as well. It was embarrassing to see them grovel to gheir captors, but I could see their point.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

There was no way of knowing how many shots were fired at the targets - just how many hit.

At least for your own side there was: Count up the number of AP rounds expended during an action and how many dead enemy tanks afterward. I imagine the Germans kept statistics like this as well, whenever possible. Obviously exact numbers are impossible, and sometimes even approximate would be difficult. But being in the ballpark is better than being totally in the dark.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Was the Iraqi Army really badly led? I don't imagine Saddam was a genius but I have no knowledge of battalion or brigade/regiment commanders.

There couldn't have been too many that were awfully good. The proof is in the pudding.

Besides, I don't expect that anyone possessed of much critical intelligence gets to keep his head very long in Saddam's regime.

Michael

[Guest machineman]

Originally posted by Dar:

When you've got an enemy shooting at you, piss running down your leg, your optics and machinery damaged from hits and large caliber HE near-misses, your seat stained with the blood of the last unfortunate soul you replaced, and you're trying to remember how to operate the optics and gun traverse you learned all about in your 48 hours of training before entering the replacement pool, then let's see how many shots you need!

During live fire the gunner

had to press his face hard against the sight or the recoil could knock him senseless. While firing, the turret interior filled

with smoke and dust. The noise was incredible, with the radio chatter in the earphones, the crashing of the gun, and the

clanging of the ejected shell cases hitting the back of the turret wall and floor combining with the roar of the engine and

clatter of the tracks when moving.

http://www.rdwarf.com/kioh/afaq/m48a5.html

[I/O Error]

Exactly. Any tanker who read that and was forced to reduce his combat load would just mutiny.

"Well, you guys don't REALLY need all that ammo, right soldiers?"

*click*

"Hey colonel baby, over here man."

*BANG*

[Guest MantaRay]

Seeing as most of the men we captured seemed rather happy to be captured, I would say that leadership wasnt the main problem. No leader could have made them soldiers, if they didnt have the heart for it in the first place.

Ray

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

There couldn't have been too many that were awfully good. The proof is in the pudding.

Besides, I don't expect that anyone possessed of much critical intelligence gets to keep his head very long in Saddam's regime.

Michael

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

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

Click now for shelter from the Peng thread

The Red Army of the Rugged Defense Group Ladder

[Guest Wildman]

Not that I'm defending this guy, but I think your missing the point of his post. In today's rapid deployment requirements, supplies are the long pole in the tent.

For example, the B-52s in the Gulf almost ran out of bombs, before resupply could reach them by ship. They were actually loading up the last of the bomb available, (I forget which airbase in Saudi they were at) when the resupply rolled in.

The ability to move quickly with an armored division and still keep in combat effective, is due in large part to the logistic tail behind it. I think that everyone can agree on this point. After planning the movements of my squadron to a bare base, which is all the Army could really consider for a division on the move, AMMO and FUEL are the items used in the largest quantities. So if we are really using figures that have us bringing too much ammo for a specific time frame (generally 30 days). Then we are hampering our ability to quickly move to the point of contention, especially during the deployment phase.

For example, and using his figures. 15,000 rounds expended by a division in 24 hours. or 625 rounds fired per hour. That seems a little unrealistic. You would need barrel changes after firing that many rounds in such a short time. So maybe 15,000 rounds should last a week under combat conditions? That would lead to 2142 rounds fired a day. MBTs today hold roughly 50 rounds each, so that is 43 tanks firing there complete complement of AMMO, assuming that their entire loadout was APFSDS only, which it isn't. So if it is a 30/20 AP/HEAT split that is 72 MBT firing their entire complement of AP ammo in a 24 hour period. Now assuming 12 MBTs per armored CO that is six full companies of an Armored Division in battle that expend their ENTIRE load of AP. EACH AND EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. That also seems a little high, but gives you a margin of error.

Now lets look at that 15,000 rounds a day figure. That is 15,000 AP rounds a day. At 50 AP rounds a MBT that is 300 tanks firing 50 AP rounds in a 24 hour period. With the 30/20 AP/HEAT split that is 500 tanks firing their entire AP load a day. Given 12 MBT an Armored CO that is 41.5 tank companies firing their entire load of AP (on a 30/20 split) each and every day. Now last I looked that is a little larger that the average Armored Division.

So now given that 15,000 rounds of AP last a week, instead of a day, you have lowered your logistic requirements.

From 15,000 x 7 = 105,000 AP rounds a week to 15,000 AP rounds a week. A reduction of 86% in the logistics requirements for AMMO. You now need fewer logistics personnel, trucks, etc to move your Division along.

Now these numbers are in no way entirely accurate, however, they are not entirely fantasy either. What the gentlemen said is, if we are planning on unrealistic firing rates then we are hampering our ability to move quickly and easily, not only on the battlefield, but getting to the battlefield, which is always the most difficult thing to do.

POV from a logistic kind of guy.

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Wildman:

For example, the B-52s in the Gulf almost ran out of bombs, before resupply could reach them by ship. They were actually loading up the last of the bomb available, (I forget which airbase in Saudi they were at) when the resupply rolled in.

The ability to move quickly with an armored division and still keep in combat effective, is due in large part to the logistic tail behind it. I think that everyone can agree on this point. After planning the movements of my squadron to a bare base, which is all the Army could really consider for a division on the move, AMMO and FUEL are the items used in the largest quantities. So if we are really using figures that have us bringing too much ammo for a specific time frame (generally 30 days). Then we are hampering our ability to quickly move to the point of contention, especially during the deployment phase.

B-52s weren't based in Saudi, they were flying out of Diego Garcia.

But here's the real point, don't think you would rather at least know the ammo is there, and available to be transported if you need it? Ammo expendatures are almost always higher than projected figures, and if you cut down on the total amount available, you cut down on the overall effectiveness of any unit. How much more vulnerable are your units when they are told, "Well, we don't have a whole lot of ammo to expend, so don't fire until you're assured of a hit". I personally would rather be able to use a little harassing fire, and take a few chances on improbable hits. I'd much prefer to know that even if my ammo level in-theatre isn't high, that there was plenty more where that came from available to transport if needed.

Heck, they didn't see us using Tomahawks in huge volumes either, but we pretty much ran out of those didn't we?

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

It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

[This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Guest Wildman]

You may be right about the Buffs, its been awhile since I was in Minot working on them.

However, to counter your arguement. While, yes in the field I'm sure you don't ever want to worry about lack of AMMO. However, how do you propose to move this limitless amount of supplies from the US, or wherever you call home is, to the Theater of Operation. One answer for the US, BY SEA. That is done by the civilian ships that are paid for by the US. Now if I fill those ships with AMMO, where do I put the fuel, the spares, the new tanks, Patriot missile, MREs, etc.

Do you get what I'm saying? In an ideal world you could get as much as you want, and while in a combat zone the last thing you want to worry about it supplies, you must consider the limiting factors. For the US, deployement is the killer. That is why we had all that prepositioned stuff in Europe, that is why it took six-seven months to prepare what, 2 corps? worth of ground forces to Saudi, and that was with alot of them coming from Europe.

The limiting factor is this. I have the ability to move XXXtones of cargo per day into the theater. If I overestimate the amount of AMMO needed then I have to leave something behind, what is it? A spare tank, spare A-A missiles, because don't forget the Navy has to bring supplies in for the Air Force. Artillery Shells? Its a balancing act that calls for accurate estimations of expenditures, not how much will make us feel good.

---

[Wolfpack]

Originally posted by Wildman:

However, to counter your arguement. While, yes in the field I'm sure you don't ever want to worry about lack of AMMO. However, how do you propose to move this limitless amount of supplies from the US, or wherever you call home is, to the Theater of Operation.

---

Not saying you're wrong there, just pointing out that it's better to have plenty of it ready to be shipped regardless of whether you can at the moment. Certainly better to have to balance than to say, "Well, damn...we're short on ammo, but there isn't enough here to give them any...maybe these MREs will do." I know the Tomahawks are much harder to produce than your standard ammo round, but the idea remains the same. We ran out of them because their use far outstripped our capacity to tool up to increase production again. Since it's not an instantaneous process, I would think we should make sure there's plenty to go around.

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

It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

[This message has been edited by Wolfpack (edited 02-09-2001).]

[Guest Wildman]

I wholeheartedly agree with that principle, however, it would be outside the scope this gentleman was talking about. He was referring to a single division hauling 15,000 rounds with them to the AOR and around the AOR.

To have the capability to quickly produce or have war stocks on hand, would be above the division and into the Army HQ level. If you look at his arguement at the specific division level, it does make some sense.

[I/O Error]

About the B-52s:

There were a few squadrons stationed in Saudi, although most were stationed in Diego Garcia or Europe.

I know this because I spent my whole life (until this past year) living in Saudi Arabia, and was there during the Gulf War

Ever heard a B-52 start to spin up its engines? I **** you not, we heard the damn things spooling up 20-25 miles away at home with the doors and windows closed!

(I'd also like to point out that being shot at nightly with SCUDs and being totally unable to stop it or even do anything constructive is a real downer)

I'll tell you one thing, the local folks LOVED inviting over the army boys for a few illicit bottles of beer, ESPECIALLY the crew members of the local Patriot launchers!!!

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

Honor, Duty, Courage.

Valhalla awaits you, honorable warrior...

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

"If you find yourself alone, riding through green fields with the sun on your face, do not be troubled, for you are in Elysium, and YOU ARE ALREADY DEAD!"