Firing to tanks side/rear
- Thread starter tneva82
- Start date
Mr Evil said:
You need to have a look at losses in Chechnya Mr Evil. There is a study which shows the causes of kills based on hits to BMPs & BTRs. Basically, all are much more vulnerable to side, rear and top shots from RPGs, The BMP 1 particularly goes up like a torch when hit in the rear as the door also contains a fuel tank. The same study reported that no more modern tanks were lost to frontal RPG shots, but again shots at the sides, top and rear were effective, and that slat, reactive and standoff armour dramatically reduces the losses to RPGs. I am at work at the mo but will post the link when I get home.
There is nothing to suggest other IFVs are really any different. It really is a design flaw - if you put that much ammo, fuel, missiles etc into a light armoured box then anything that does get through the armour will hit something that either burns, explodes or screams.
As for the M1 thing, sounds pretty similar to German practice in WW2 - tanks were only counted as lost if they could not be recovered and theoretically rebuilt. In real life if it isnt running it is lost to the unit, or worse, a liability.
yep side shots kill more tanks than front shots, but thats more due to troops being trained to aim for the side the side profil from above is alot more of a bigger target than a target from the front land level.
so from the side, a hit is alot easier if target is staionary. thing was the bmp1 was taken out by russian weapons designed and trained to do just that, it was the right equipment for the right job. when russia designed somthing they also designed a method and training on how to take it out.
so from the side, a hit is alot easier if target is staionary. thing was the bmp1 was taken out by russian weapons designed and trained to do just that, it was the right equipment for the right job. when russia designed somthing they also designed a method and training on how to take it out.
Sorry E, part of the Russian problem was that the Chechens were NOT using Russian tactics, they were using small anti armour ambush groups based around 3-4 man cells, one shooter w RPG, a sniper w SVD and a gunner ww LMG to peel the inf away, and put down a lot of rounds to cover the withdrawal. They would have several cells involved in an ambush and hit the target with a volley of RPGs - sometimes tag teaming the target if it had reactive armour so that the second round hit the exposed armour
Here is that link
http://www.amina.com/article/mil_waste.html
Interestingly, in the Second Chechen War, which the Russians seem to have won (as much as you can in the circumstances), they countered this tactic with smaller squads which mirrrowed the Chechen organisations and SPAA from ZSU23s & 2S6s Tunguskas clearing possible firing positions.
Here is that link
http://www.amina.com/article/mil_waste.html
Interestingly, in the Second Chechen War, which the Russians seem to have won (as much as you can in the circumstances), they countered this tactic with smaller squads which mirrrowed the Chechen organisations and SPAA from ZSU23s & 2S6s Tunguskas clearing possible firing positions.
il have a look later, but wernt the chechans mostly ex ussr soiliers who were trained fighting basicly new conscripts who were wet around the ears, thats like putting a guy of 2 weeks training against troops with 5+ years of training, russian tactics dictate that the longer the men serve the better they know their fellow man and are capable of setting abushed in small fire teams (cells). this was part of the problem older mid-late 30s men who had in some cases served a term of servise against some 16-18 years olds who didnt join by choice and didnt realy wish to be their so they huddled together.
point is i spose exsperianced troops have the knowedge to take out enemy armour via ambushes.
so far i dont think there has been a case of a fair fight in war, spose thats part of the tactics get the right stuff in the right place and overwelming force in others.
point is i spose exsperianced troops have the knowedge to take out enemy armour via ambushes.
so far i dont think there has been a case of a fair fight in war, spose thats part of the tactics get the right stuff in the right place and overwelming force in others.
The old Soviet system of conscription would not give a 5 year veteran, as they served only a couple of years. They also had problems with the "old lags" who were comming to the end of their term who were less than enthusiastic, but this is not exactly a Russian phenomena - DEROS and all that.
Yes there is some suggestion that the Chechens were more experienced, but that does not support your suggestion that
"the bmp1 was taken out by russian weapons designed and trained to do just that, it was the right equipment for the right job. when russia designed somthing they also designed a method and training on how to take it out."
I can't buy into that theory. Russian tactics and kit was designed to fight NATO, not their own. If there is a problem with the equipment it was that it was designed to fight a high intensity ground war following nuclear or chemical strikes in Central Europe. Trying to use that and the associated doctrine in Afghanistan, or Chechnya is not going to work very well, but in Europe? Well. lets put it this way, Soviet doctrine is part based on fighting the Germans in WW2. NATO doctrine, on the whole, was based on fighting German style battles in WW2 (light infantry formations stiffened with tank heavy units as fire brigades). 95% of German casualties in WW2 were on the Russian Front. It's true that the chechens were (probably) more experienced than the Russian conscripts, but as in everything, it's a broad generality.
Those Chechen cells would make great BFEVO units :twisted:
Yes there is some suggestion that the Chechens were more experienced, but that does not support your suggestion that
"the bmp1 was taken out by russian weapons designed and trained to do just that, it was the right equipment for the right job. when russia designed somthing they also designed a method and training on how to take it out."
I can't buy into that theory. Russian tactics and kit was designed to fight NATO, not their own. If there is a problem with the equipment it was that it was designed to fight a high intensity ground war following nuclear or chemical strikes in Central Europe. Trying to use that and the associated doctrine in Afghanistan, or Chechnya is not going to work very well, but in Europe? Well. lets put it this way, Soviet doctrine is part based on fighting the Germans in WW2. NATO doctrine, on the whole, was based on fighting German style battles in WW2 (light infantry formations stiffened with tank heavy units as fire brigades). 95% of German casualties in WW2 were on the Russian Front. It's true that the chechens were (probably) more experienced than the Russian conscripts, but as in everything, it's a broad generality.
Those Chechen cells would make great BFEVO units :twisted:
Given that the units those weapons would have been deployed with were told by the Soviets themselves that if war happened and they were captured, they'd been executed? I'd rather take a chunk out of the invasion force with a weapon that had the potential of killing me than running the risk of being captured and killed. 
There are plenty of warheads designed to defeat reactive armour, the venerable RPG-7 has an MS-HEAT (multi-stage high explosive anti tank) warhead which has two HEAT warheads staged apart from one another to blow off reactive armour with the first and pop the tank with the second. and that's a 30 or so year old weapon...
Mr Evils comments about M1's never being oficially destroyed tells me more about the way the US calculates it's battlfield losses than the actual survivability of the M1A1...
G.
Mr Evils comments about M1's never being oficially destroyed tells me more about the way the US calculates it's battlfield losses than the actual survivability of the M1A1...
G.
Daddy Dragon
Banded Mongoose
GJD said:
If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. The US military doesn't do anything any different that any other nation with regards to how it counts materiel loss. I don't know where you guys get this grand coverup scheme idea from. Sheesh, you sound like my Great Uncle. He has a bunker and everything, ready for Castro and his 5th column to invade any day.
As demostrated by the PDF file Hiro provides the link for above, it is VERY difficult to permanently and irrecoverably destroy an Abrams (or just about any other modern MBT in existence). Even in WW2, when the panzers were shellacking the sherman tank, those vehicles hulks were dragged back to battalion and rebuilt and rolled back out into battle as fast as humanly possible. More than 5000 of the 9000 M1 hulls ever built are still in service. If they can't be refitted or repaired, then they get recycled. Everything else gets new parts, new paint and a new crew and the mission continues.
And just to make one little extra point. EVERYTHING in a military arsenal is expendable. Every bullet, every potato, every nut/bolt/button & belt. Every grunt who signs his name on the dotted line needs to understand that fact when they enlist. If an objective must be taken, their commanders will weigh the odds and shoot their dice. Its war, and people can and do die. No magic technological tool is going to change the fact that the business of killing is the OLDEST profession. And tragic though every one of those losses are for a family or loved one, that is the short, brutal, sad fact.
Regards,
Larry
Just be glad it isn't like Korea...
Former US Army Vet from the Korean war was telling me how they'd do tank attacks in Columns. The first one would get hit, the column would drive past while the recovery team hosed out the remenants of the crew, slapped a patch over the hole, then stuck it at the end of the column....
Former US Army Vet from the Korean war was telling me how they'd do tank attacks in Columns. The first one would get hit, the column would drive past while the recovery team hosed out the remenants of the crew, slapped a patch over the hole, then stuck it at the end of the column....
Daddy Dragon said:
Okay, and take a breath.. It was meant as a wry, throw-away comment, not a suggestion of some kind of military cover-up.
The PDF (good find, by the way) clearly indicates a number of things to me, one of which is that after action reports will happily classify the reason why a tank stops working into a dozen different categories. It's also less use to us as BEVO players as an indicator of tank survivability as it clearly states no losses to either ATGM's, ant-tank mines or main tank gun shots.
However, to the guy on the ground I imagine that as long as they are still mobile and breathing, at thjat point they don't care if their tank was disabled due to direct fire, secondary effects, manufacture failure or whatever. Their tank 'aint working and they are in harms way.
To my mind the relevancy of if the tank was pernmanently disabled, destroyed or recoverable is irrelevant to the combat commander in the first instance. The figure I would be interested in is how often my tanks are disabled during combat. It's the difference between if the tanks are disbaled very easily, but can be repaired easily or if they are difficult to disable, but once disabled a totally knackered. One is good in the long run (prevent overall force depletion but loose active tanks) one is good in the the short term (preserve your active force but loose tanks to attrition).
G.
Actually, for tank survivability....
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
And from the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm):
And here's a Unit that could (if it wasn't disbanded in 2002) testify to the durability of the Abrams.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/tawakalna.htm
http://members.tripod.com/collinsj/protect.htm
And from the first Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm):
And here's a Unit that could (if it wasn't disbanded in 2002) testify to the durability of the Abrams.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/tawakalna.htm
you like your global security site dont you. hope its not from google as ther probably making a bomb from us through hits and advertising, wich of course a proper site wouldnt try to do 
.
more i look at the global security site the more doesnt seem right with it, or is it just me ?
by the way an apach just flew over my house sweeeet
.more i look at the global security site the more doesnt seem right with it, or is it just me ?
by the way an apach just flew over my house
sweeeetInterestingly the Israelis had 18 Merks seriously damaged during the recent ops in Lebanon, but suffered over 100 crew casualties. The Merkava has a reputation for crew protection, so maybe the difference is the type of combat in which they are engaged.
I wonder how many M1s have been disabled since the "war" phase of OIF and how many crew casualties?
I wonder how many M1s have been disabled since the "war" phase of OIF and how many crew casualties?
