Tanks for Afghanistan

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Merkava-4 is the most modern of the series, featuring an American 1500 hp engine, a NATO-compatible 120mm gun (the earlier version all have a 105mm), additional armour on turret roof and reportedly modern comms and sensors (network-capable). With a weight of 65 tons, it really is no "light" solution. It has slower top speed and acceleration than the abrams or Leopard2A5 though.

And the following I found at Wikipedia (German). In the Lebanon war 2006, 50 Merkavas were hit and disabled by ATGMs and even IEDs, with many losses and wounded amongst the crews (over 130). Almost half of the tanks were disabled by hits that were able to penetrate the armour. Reasons for this relatively "sub-optimal" performance, according to the results of internal examinations of the Israeli defense minsitry were latest ATGMs delivered to Hezbollah, bad training standard and lacking experience of the crews, lacking mobility in tank tactics, and the units being fielded without smoke grenades. Also see here: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...297431,00.html )

I also belong to those few sceptics suspecting that their armour technology is not en par with the most modern Western "recipes".

The article refers to military officials concluding that Hezbollah had thousands of modern ATGMs and excellent penetration capabilities, and that it also had the knowledge and training to know about the characteristics of the Merkavas, and where and when to hit them to acchieve maximum probability for a score.

Under such circumstances, every tank is vulnerable, and faces extremely tough fighting conditions. I wonder how the famous American "Thunder Run" at Baghdad would have gone if their enemy would have been better prepared, organized and armed woith modern ATGMs (as Hezbollah obviously has been). I think they would have had far higher losses then. It was said that the Thunde rrun has chnaged the way tacticians think about the idea of tanks versus infantry in cities (before it was considered to be a bad idea). I still believe it to be a bad idea, at least against a reasonably prepared enemy with reasonably adequate weaponry. Thunder Run should better not be understood as an example to be repeated, imho. but maybe that is just me.

I just finished designing a Steel Beasts scenario where these risks for tanks fighting against ATGM-sequipped infantry became (involuntarily) obvious for me once again. It is only a sim, yes, but nevertheless one with high educational value on the matter.

Thanks for your thoughts. I have personally thought that Merk 4 is more modern than Leo 6. As for Lebanon i think it would have been the same for any tank. There are just enviroments that are a kill zone for tanks. And i agree in the Iraq battles, i cant believe anybody would make any conclusions based on them.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

And i agree in the Iraq battles, i cant believe anybody would make any conclusions based on them.

2003 - probably not. 1991 - that is something different. There must have been some extremely sharp tank fighting taken place, with extremely bad visiblity and tank formations sometimes badly messed up, having enemy units and friendlies mixed at point blank range (referring to some according informations from "Into the Storm"). the Iraquis back then may have been technologically inferior, but tactically quite some of their commanders showed sharp teeth. If they would have had better weapons, it maybe wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war, but the American losses possibly would have been very high in some areas of the battlefield. As General Franks, commander of VII corps, put it: that it went so fast should nobody lead to believe that it was easy.

[P_Funk]

You know as a Canadian I'm gald we're at least getting new equipment. The 90s saw a bad spree for the Canadian military. The absurd consolidation into a single armed force for one, the wholesale selling off of advanced equipment, then the disbanding of elite troops for no real purpose. But now we need all that back. I think I remember reading that Canadian troops were actually transported by Chinooks owned by the Dutch that we sold them years earlier in Afghanistan in the first part of the conflict.

[bradclark1]

If they would have had better

weapons,
logistics,
leadership,
training,
motivation,
patriotism.
If is a bloody big word. History doesn't march on if's.

[Skybird]

Youre right Brad, all I meant is that it does not sound smart to consider something that probably was an exception from the rule the basis for future tactics. For example try that thunder run on Berlin's city highway, or on the huge boulevards and alleys along "Unter den Eichen" or "Unter den Linden", that are wide streets, multiple lanes, with a green centrelane with bushes, parks, trees, and many tress on both sides of the streets, additonal to the buildings and side streets (Berlin is a very green city for it's size) . Imagine you are up against regular BW infantry and/or commandos armed with Panzerfaust-3 and Milans. An armoured column trying it most probably would get shreddered into pieces, I'm sure.

One should tailor one's tactics according to the assumed worst possible situation or enemy. If the actual enemy one is dealing with shows to be much weaker, good, then it is a welcomed bonus and thankfully accepted. But to implement tactics against a strong enemy that were designed to deal with weaker enemies may result in ultimate desaster.

BTW, for Steel Beasts, a guy called Daskal has set up a huge scenario, Thunder Run Baghdad. Go and buy SB, Brad, and then try that scenario as a constantly running armoured column !

[bradclark1]

I think Thunder Run was an acceptable risk/gamble for speed to overrun. The Israeli's I believe use tanks in the cities effectively but as you say, a lot depends on how the enemy is armed.

[Happy Times]

The Arabs cant fight conventionally, when they do instead of terrorism, they get their ass kicked. Their culture and mentality doesnt enable them to look war or training for it, in a cool and analytical manner.

[Polak]

The Leo is a great machine, the Polish military is really satisfied with the A4. I believe that they even announced that they will be buying more A4's from German military stocks. A great decision since I think that the A4's are a bit sharper than our domestic designs. Too bad, that there is no money in the budget for the A6 version.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

The Arabs cant fight conventionally, when they do instead of terrorism, they get their ass kicked. Their culture and mentality doesnt enable them to look war or training for it, in a cool and analytical manner.

I think it is a matter of their leadership. Their officers feel entitled to their positions.

I went through my Basic Course with a couple of Egyptians in 1993. Many of the old tankers here remember the 10 Day War. (I've heard it's now the 7 Day War ) The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Heibges

I think it is a matter of their leadership. Their officers feel entitled to their positions.

I went through my Basic Course with a couple of Egyptians in 1993. Many of the old tankers here remember the 10 Day War. (I've heard it's now the 7 Day War ) The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

Well that too, it relates to the serfculture they have. Ive allways liked systems where every man has to go through the same basic training and work their way up from there. We have that and so do the Israelis for exsample. I know US has that possibility, but i assume its more of an exception.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Well that too, it relates to the serfculture they have. Ive allways liked systems where every man has to go through the same basic training and work their way up from there. We have that and so do the Israelis for exsample. I know US has that possibility, but i assume its more of an exception.

You are correct about it being the exception in the United States, but really one of the smartest ways to pursue a military career in the American military.

If you earn a commission as an enlisted in the Regular Army, you will most likely be commissioned in the Regular Army. By going in as an officer, you may be commissioned into the Reserves or National Guard and serve no active duty time at all, or serve just a couple of years of active duty.

Even Academy graduates aren't guaranteed Regular Army any more.

[bradclark1]

36% of the junior officer corp are leaving when their commitment ends nowadays. Main reason sited is Iraq.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Heibges

The two Egyptians basically did not feel they should have to go out and sleep in the field. It's hard to win any type of war, when your combat arms officers don't like going to the field.

Gen .Franks wrote about his experience as corps commander, when he arrived in Saudi Arabia, inspected the already established sites and then was told of the training for the Kuwaiti of Saudi units in 1990/91 in one place. When he inspected the site, trainers complained that when they told their group to dig some foxholes for themselves, the troops said it would be offensive to their male honour to dig in the dirt or something like this. They got out their handies, called their families, and some time later servants of theirs tried to come in by car, to dig the foxholes for them. The US trainers of course went ballistic about this. And commander of VII. corps wrote he definitely was not pleased to learn about this.

another story he reported is this: that the first Kuwaiti or Saudi units (I forgot which one it was, I think it were Saudis), that recovered the Abrams in preparation for Desert Storm - jumped into the tanks, drove around like crazy or like being drunk, yelled like kids into the microphone and brought the whole radio network down. They also fired around blindly until the tanks ran out of ammo, like they use to shoot their rifles into the air during assemblies or festivities. It was a stockcar race. The tanks were scattered around over the whole training area, and finally stranded, out of ammo. Again, their US trainers went up into orbit...

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by bradclark1

36% of the junior officer corp are leaving when their commitment ends nowadays. Main reason sited is Iraq.

That is very disturbing considering a few years ago they would have been killing each other to see their name on the Captains List in the Army Times.

[Heibges]

Originally Posted by P_Funk

You know as a Canadian I'm gald we're at least getting new equipment. The 90s saw a bad spree for the Canadian military. The absurd consolidation into a single armed force for one, the wholesale selling off of advanced equipment, then the disbanding of elite troops for no real purpose. But now we need all that back. I think I remember reading that Canadian troops were actually transported by Chinooks owned by the Dutch that we sold them years earlier in Afghanistan in the first part of the conflict.

In 1993 (iirc) the Canadian Army got 6 T-72's for evaluation, and I got to climb around on them at CFB Gagetown. I think the Russians were selling them for $10K each plus Shipping and Handling.