RE: Great Tank Battles

RE: Great Tank Battles (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion

Message

HansHafen -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/24/2011 11:40:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: cantona2 Gulf War great tank battle?!??! Air supremacy vs tanks = no tank battle! ... Actually it was the battle of 73 easting: Bradleys w/TOWs and M1 Abrams vs. stationary Soviet arm'd vehicles, and I don't recall that any "Warthogs" were involved. I've read a study of that battle. It would be a pretty bloody battle for Americans if there weren't three factors involved: 1. The Iraqi didn't know how to dig in properly. They made sand berms instead of properly digging in their tanks. A properly dug tank "trench" should be deep enough to hide the whole tank with a part where tank can drive forward and show just a turret to fire at enemies. Result: Americans could see the tanks and fire through sand berms. 2. A big part of Iraqi weren't in their tanks. They stayed outside from fear of air-strikes. A lot of tanks were destroyed without crew inside. 3. They didn't set up early warning posts that would warn them that Americans are coming and would allow them to get into tanks. Apparently it's because the Middle East has a culture of treasuring knowledge for personal advantage and not passing it to subordinates. Do you really believe the complete destruction of the Iraqi Army is explained by not digging in properly? Do you believe the Iraqi's couldn't HEAR 100 mechanized vehicles coming their way? No, the Iraqi's would have been destroyed even if they were dug in like ticks and they slept in their vehicles.

HansHafen -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/24/2011 11:43:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bairdlander USA will never attack an adversary that they think will give them a bloody nose. You say that like it's a bad thing. Sounds like a good policy to me. Of course, anyone out there that thinks they have big pants on can attack us any time they like, right?

HansHafen -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/24/2011 11:56:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo What I have found bizarre was that it wasn't just a question of technology ... but also a question of cultural flaws that make their military function completely irrationally. That was the Soviet excuse: blame the iraqis and their islamic culture to explain away the relatively poor performance of Warsaw Pact armaments against that of the coalition during ODS. Many of us didn't buy it then, and still don't accept it today. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo But did he predict that their refusal to give up would make wars with middle eastern countries very expensive? Keegen is a military historian and analyst, not a macro-economist. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo KLMs? Also, I didn't mean the ODS. I meant the latter wars that actually involved a government change ... Then you should have said so; The Mil Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" depiction of the battle of 73 Easting was during Gulf War I under Schwarzkopf when GW Sr. was Cdr in Chief. I recommend taking a look at a small book by Osprey called M1 Abrams vs T-72 Ural: Operation Desert Storm 1991. It argues the US MBT went up against a Warsaw Pact T-72 that was slightly outdated comparatively. As you would imagine, the Iraqi's didn't get the latest and greatest T-72. Those were in Russia's hands. Also, the Iraqi's had less training and older ammunition and no gyro stabilizers either (iirc).

Perturabo -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/25/2011 11:55:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo What I have found bizarre was that it wasn't just a question of technology ... but also a question of cultural flaws that make their military function completely irrationally. That was the Soviet excuse: blame the iraqis and their islamic culture to explain away the relatively poor performance of Warsaw Pact armaments against that of the coalition during ODS. Why would they need an excuse for performance of downgraded export versions of their hardware? It's not like they were advertising their stuff by saying that it will perform well against arms used by a world super-power. Also, it the explanation wasn't created by the Soviets. It's an American explanation of why Americans took much lower losses in reality than in computer simulations of that battle. The point of that explanation was that skills of soldiers and leaders are as important as technology and that the myth of technology alone deciding about results of battles is harmful. While Warsaw Pact tanks couldn't pierce the armour of M1 Abrams tanks, they certainly could pierce armour of Bradleys and only one Bradley was lost to enemy fire. quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo But did he predict that their refusal to give up would make wars with middle eastern countries very expensive? Keegen is a military historian and analyst, not a macro-economist. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo KLMs? Also, I didn't mean the ODS. I meant the latter wars that actually involved a government change ... Then you should have said so; The Mil Channel's "Greatest Tank Battles" depiction of the battle of 73 Easting was during Gulf War I under Schwarzkopf when GW Sr. was Cdr in Chief. You were talking about predictions about how no 3rd world army would pose a problem to a modern western army. Getting bogged down in 6 years of an expensive counterinsurgency campaign proves that it's patently false. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Would not surprise me at all that we would agree to this. But if IIRC, if the other party does not follow the conventions then the other warring party is not bound by them either. Not that we would ever be allowed to do that.[8\|] Shouldn't they get tried for war crimes anyway? quote: ORIGINAL: HansHafen Do you really believe the complete destruction of the Iraqi Army is explained by not digging in properly? Do you believe the Iraqi's couldn't HEAR 100 mechanized vehicles coming their way? No, the Iraqi's would have been destroyed even if they were dug in like ticks and they slept in their vehicles. I never claimed they wouldn't be destroyed. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR A lot of the animosity we faced in the South was due to the 1st GW. Bush Sr had been calling for them to rise up and rebel all the time. When they did, we turned our backs on them while they got massacred almost in front of us. So, they don't like USA because USA has no honour and turns its back on their allies? That's almost unheard of! How can they hold grudge for being lied to and getting massacred? How it's even possible[8\|]? quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR heck I had 1st Crusade stuff tossed at me while there. Of course they did not want to hear that the 1st Crusade was a retaliation of the Muslim invasion of Europe.[8\|][8\|] 1st Crusade wasn't a retaliation for the Muslim invasion of Europe. Reconquista was and it happened several centuries earlier. 1st Crusade happened because the Pope has decided to help the Byzantine Emperor to repel the Seljuk Turk invaders and to get rid of thousands of armed troublemakers from Europe at the same time.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/25/2011 6:46:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Nope, no A10's. We actually fought (all of 2nd ACR) 3 brigades. 1 from Tawakana, 1 from Medina, 1 from Hamarabi divisions. Eagle 2/2 hit the stationary, but we also had Fox, Ghost and Hawk company engaged. Hawk tangled with a brigade that was fleeing the Brit's and 1st Cav and almost ran into our combat trains. We lost a gunner in a Ghost troop Brad during the fight. Our M109 battery fired 2600 shells during the battle. Almost 12 hours long. Visibility sucked massively. Even with thermals. Towards the end of the battle we passed 1st Inf thru our lines during the battle at night. We then went into Corp reserve. Our S2 recorded a broadcast from the radio that said "we have found, fixed and destroyed the 2nd ACR" and at that moment you can hear in the background our contact reports coming in. Is there scenario about that for WinSPMBT? Or any other wargame?

Joe D. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/25/2011 9:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo Why would they need an excuse for performance of downgraded export versions of their hardware? It's not like they were advertising their stuff by saying that it will perform well against arms used by a world super-power Most nations, including the former Sovet Union, sold their mil hardware to other nations, esp. in the 3rd world. quote: ORIGINAL: Perturabo You were talking about predictions about how no 3rd world army would pose a problem to a modern western army. Getting bogged down in 6 years of an expensive counterinsurgency campaign proves that it's patently false. Apples and oranges: the context of my comparison was on the actual battlefield, as was that of the Greatest Tank Battles program: both have nothing to do with counterinsurgencies or military-industrial complexes.

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/27/2011 3:56:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Well, not bloody at all really. We took a mission kill M1a1 (engine took a hit and part of the track gone, missing 2 road wheels) backed a captured T72 about 400 meters away and shot it from the side. Did not penetrate the armor. Spalling would have hurt the crew. The Iraqi's were using home made in Iraq ammo for the tanks, they lacked the punch of true Russian tank rounds. Plus the Iraqi tankers really did not know how to fight their vehicles. 2nd Day of ground war, we rolled thru a bunker complex (thought it was abandoned), stopped to prepare to do a fast sweep, when up pops an Iraqi soldier out of a bunker, he dove back in, and you could hear the shouting, seconds later, all kinds of weapons were being thrown out of bunkers all over the place. 275 or so prisoners. Our Saudi interpreter said they had a report of us being 30 miles away about 2 hours before we got there. They figured we would arrive the next day. Never thought we could move that fast. But my memory is foggy after all these years. The distance could have been further. After 73 Easting, when ever we came upon Iraqi armor (or any vehicles for that matter) we would pop a round nearby, the Iraqi would stop, bail out, run about 300 meters and plop to the ground, then we would destroy the vehicle. They learned that being in the vehicle was certain death. I honestly cannot remember if we ever had any air support outside our own attack helicopter squadron and the Apache Battalion we had assigned to us. We rolled thru areas that had been B52 strikes on them, and there were craters everywhere, but alot of times we never could figure out what they were hitting. But the Iraqi's were terrified of the A10 and Apache. Not to mention any of our M1a1's or Brads. I know it is not politically correct, but I hold all Arab/Middle east armies in extremely low regard. Except the Israel army. All the others, well, I do not fear them in the least, at all. Seriously, you should write a book. I'll bet it would really be a great read.

2ndACR -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/27/2011 4:08:40 AM)
Nah, not a writer. Love to read them. Plus my view was a really small part. I can only go by what I saw and such. Thanks though.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/27/2011 4:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bairdlander USA will never attack an adversary that they think will give them a bloody nose. This is pretty good military advice for any country. Why do you think we left Japanese garrisons stranded on islands in the Pacific? When I was in the Marines we were taught to "Never fight a battle you don't need to fight."

Joe D. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/27/2011 12:09:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR But the Iraqi's were terrified of the A10 and Apache ... After an A-10 mistakenly "lit-up" a Marine LAV killing its crew, we ALL were afraid of them.

ilovestrategy -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/27/2011 3:34:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Joe D. quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR But the Iraqi's were terrified of the A10 and Apache ... After an A-10 mistakenly "lit-up" a Marine LAV killing its crew, we ALL were afraid of them. This reminds me of when I came back to my company after being on leave I noticed everyone was quiet. I asked what was up and found out the entire company including myself since I came back was on lockdown because a round fired from a 50 Cal. at the armory when it was supposed to be unloaded. I was told the round fired and struck a wall next to one of my platoon mates. We were confined to barracks a solid week. It sucked.

planner 3 -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/27/2011 9:42:55 PM)
ilovestatergy: Reminds me of when I arrived back at base, stuck in the nose turret of a P4M Mecator. Had twin 20mm cannons next to me also jammed. The Ordnanace crew came out to get me out and grabbed the weapons to pull the turret free, both cannons fired, through the hangar in front of the line, through two tails of sister squadrons A/C, out the other side and plowerd into a hill. It wasn' funny then but it is now, the look on the ordnance mans face when they went off next to his head. BY the way he was ready to kill me, til he realized I was jammed with my head pointed to the ground and could not get at the weapons from that position, to clear same. Planner3 (aka Chief)

jomni -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/28/2011 1:32:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy quote: ORIGINAL: bairdlander USA will never attack an adversary that they think will give them a bloody nose. This is pretty good military advice for any country. Why do you think we left Japanese garrisons stranded on islands in the Pacific? When I was in the Marines we were taught to "Never fight a battle you don't need to fight." Well after the first Gulf War, they got bloodied by Somali militants. But you could just say the Somalis don't play fair.

2ndACR -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/28/2011 2:19:56 AM)
I was in Somalia, we had our hands tied. But this will go down hill quick because this will go into politics etc.

Nikademus -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/28/2011 4:58:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Would not surprise me at all that we would agree to this. But if IIRC, if the other party does not follow the conventions then the other warring party is not bound by them either. Not that we would ever be allowed to do that.[8\|] Do you think the Iraqi's might have done better had they not dug in their armor forces as static pillboxes or would the thermals/FC and air support have still been too much?

2ndACR -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/29/2011 2:13:50 AM)
Our M1a1's and Brads would have ate them for lunch. No contest. I would trust our Apaches more than the air support. I know the one time I had the AUX radio monitoring the FAC radio freq, he requested air support for such and such grid, the response, "neg air support this time, diverted to priority target"........what that was, you got me. Then the Apaches arrived. We were worried about the Brads, but discovered pretty quick that it was a really good vehicle. Will turn a BMP to swiss cheese and even do a number on a T55. Our TOW2 would have killed the T72. The Iraqi's just did not have the range to engage us effectively. We would have chewed them up if they came out to fight. 73 Easting was the best chance they had, extremely low visibility. Drizzle, sand storm all at the same time. Hard as that is to believe. I think our contact report was at 800 meters. Way, way too close. I know my Brad popped a BMP at about 50 meters in a wadi. It was battle sight all the way. Point and shoot, the moment the gunner said "can not identify" because the BMP filled the entire sight picture. It was really something to see when those 25mm sabot rounds started hitting that close. Scared the hell out of me. Came around a corner and there he was. All told there were 3 BMP and 4 BTR60 in that wadi. But also remember that an ACR is a bunch of teeth. My Squadron had 43 M1a1HA (heavy armor) and 42+ Brads, 12 M109 155mm SP guns assigned. If I remember correctly. I think there was 150 M1a1, 150 Brads and 24 M109, 24 Cobra's assigned to the Regiment proper. Then we had 210 FA brigade, an engineer BN, and a Apache BN assigned to us. Not sure what else. All told about 16,000 soldiers assigned to the Dragoon Battle Group. All led by a Bird Colonel that answered to the Corp commander and no one else. Memory fuzzy though, but I think that is correct. I do know an ACR can take on and defeat anything this side of 3-1 odds. Hands down. We be the elite of the Armor Forces.

stuman -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/29/2011 3:20:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bairdlander USA will never attack an adversary that they think will give them a bloody nose. WTF ?

Joe D. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/29/2011 1:13:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR ... I do know an ACR can take on and defeat anything this side of 3-1 odds. Hands down. We be the elite of the Armor Forces. Just don't deploy them on peace-keeping missions [;)]

Josh -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/29/2011 3:47:38 PM)
"Point and shoot, the moment the gunner said "can not identify" because the BMP filled the entire sight picture..." Dear Lord that's awfully close! [X(]

2ndACR -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/30/2011 1:21:45 AM)
I would prefer to never see any US soldier deployed in any "peace-keeping" operation. Not unless the ROE say "see a person with gun, shoot that person on sight, lethal force can be used once the rock throwing starts". I saw a Somali sling a rock that hit a US soldier in the face and broke his (whatever that bone around the eye is called) ocipital maybe, and he lost his eye due to it. So I have a very strong belief on when and how our COMBAT TROOPS are used.

HansHafen -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/30/2011 3:07:31 AM)
I agree ACR, if they are engaging with anything, I would be responding with lead. Politicians putting troops in a position where they are sitting ducks with ROE for an Ivory Tower talker is bull.

Joe D. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/30/2011 2:35:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR I would prefer to never see any US soldier deployed in any "peace-keeping" operation. Not unless the ROE say "see a person with gun, shoot that person on sight, lethal force can be used once the rock throwing starts". I saw a Somali sling a rock that hit a US soldier in the face ... Slingers were used extensively by both sides during the Crusades: their effectiveness was vastly under-rated. I still have my personal copy of the ROE from my tour in Bosnia (2000) that states up front and in all caps: "NOTHING IN THESE RULES PROHIBITS YOU FROM EXERCISING YOUR INHERENT RIGHT TO DEFEND YOURSELF ..." Even using minimum force in the protection of property may include deadly force concerning classified documents, weapons, etc.

Kuokkanen -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/31/2011 6:44:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR �Our M1a1's and Brads would have ate them for lunch. No contest. Something I have noticed in WinSPMBT: M1A1 can see and shoot through smoke with little (or none) modifier to hit %. Or at least smoke from vehicle's own smoke dischargers. Is this accurate? quote: We were worried about the Brads, but discovered pretty quick that it was a really good vehicle. Will turn a BMP to swiss cheese and even do a number on a T55. Our TOW2 would have killed the T72. Can you answer me this: what is the role of infantry aboard Bradley? And what is this infantry called?

RangerX3X -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/31/2011 9:05:34 PM)
What do I call a commander that takes his detachment at a two-to-one or more advantage around an enemy detachment without making contact, utilizing stand-off weaponry to engage beyond visual range for the kill? Brilliant!

Nikademus -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/31/2011 9:06:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen Something I have noticed in WinSPMBT: M1A1 can see and shoot through smoke with little (or none) modifier to hit %. Or at least smoke from vehicle's own smoke dischargers. Is this accurate? Have always been bothered by the game tactic in SPMBT of immediately releasing one's smoke dischargers to create a "wall of smoke" from which to shoot behind. It's tatamount in the game to "raising the shields" more or less as the OPFORCE (unless it too has Thermal) can't see and shoot at the force while the smoke screened thermal equipped tank of IVF proceeds to make a target practice out of the battle. Doing so on a commanding ridge often leads to nowhere for the OPFORCe to advance without exposing itself to one shot one kill. I once asked a real life tanker if such a tactic was used as portrayed in the game and IIRC his answer was no.

Joe D. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (1/31/2011 10:48:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen ... Can you answer me this: what is the role of infantry aboard Bradley? And what is this infantry called? In my day, they were called "dismounts"; they would perform the same role as any other mech infantry. The Bradley has it's own crew.

2ndACR -> RE: Great Tank Battles (2/1/2011 1:09:34 AM)
Correct, us grunts are called dismounts. But in a ACR, we are Cav scouts so we do not have the same infantry man power that a normal infantry Bradley would carry. If we were lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view you would have 3-4 dismounts. Most of the time we had 2 dismounts per Bradley. The thermals on an M1a1 are excellent. It is truly an all weather killer. Smoke discharge mounted on vehicles are there to cover a get away. Period. We, the US Army train to move and shoot at high speed. Pop smoke, throw in reverse and get out of dodge, not to pop and sit there shooting.

Nikademus -> RE: Great Tank Battles (2/1/2011 3:20:33 PM)
Based on this i'd tentatively conclude that the primary flaw in the SP game model is that the smoke from the dischargers lingers too long allowing the "sit and shoot" tactic vs. what it was intended for. (shooting and scooting to cover with the smoke covering the retreat)

Jeffrey H. -> RE: Great Tank Battles (2/1/2011 7:29:34 PM)
...or that army training hasn't caught up with advancements in their targeting advantage.

Nikademus -> RE: Great Tank Battles (2/1/2011 8:28:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Correct, us grunts are called dismounts. But in a ACR, we are Cav scouts so we do not have the same infantry man power that a normal infantry Bradley would carry. If we were lucky or unlucky depending on your point of view you would have 3-4 dismounts. Most of the time we had 2 dismounts per Bradley. The thermals on an M1a1 are excellent. It is truly an all weather killer. Smoke discharge mounted on vehicles are there to cover a get away. Period. We, the US Army train to move and shoot at high speed. Pop smoke, throw in reverse and get out of dodge, not to pop and sit there shooting. would the Thermal penetrate adequately the thick smoke right in front of the tank/IFV from the dischargers?....esp if in adverse weather conditions?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.109375