platinum786

see some would argue this is where the stryker would come in

don't quote me on this but that's smaller than a tank, it certainly looks that way anyway.

also there was news prior to the invation that Iraq purcahsed Kornet ATGM, suppose you didn't see any then or find them?

Officer of Engineers

Armour (not necessarily tanks) as long as they're infantry support is vital. It is only when you turn it the other way around (ie, infantry as tank support) that you're in a world of hurt.

However, the number one piece of armoured equipment in an urban setting more than any other vehicle is the armoured bulldozer and I mean a bulldozer; NOT an armoured vehicle with a blade.

__________________
Chimo

tankervet

Sir, there are some limitations with tanks in the urban setting without a doubt. But they have faired better than OK. Sure we cant solely base our doctrine on experiences in Iraq, but the problems that you mention were encounted in Iraq and we worked through them without a problem.

tankervet

Let me start by saying that I realize I'm messing with a hornets nets here but here goes.

It takes infantry to take buildings no doubt. There is not way around this. Boots on the ground is the only way. And most of the fighting that occured during the invasion, required armor to even get into the city. But to say that one has to have the supporting role of the other in my eyes is a mistake. A tank company augmented with infantry will be as effective as a Infantry company supported by tanks. But they both must fight a different fight for sure. In the end the same mission is accomplished.

My disclaimer: This is my opinion and I know that you know more about it than me. If I'm wrong I would like to know how

Officer of Engineers

I'm thinking of the Grozny fight and the Battles of Oratona, the Shelt, Berlin, Stalingrad, and the 2nd Battle of Arnheim. The Iraqis are poor students of MOUT and Iraq itself is not on par with those cities of the snow belt. Iraqi sewers don't have to run deep nor big enough to avoid a frost line. In essence, you have extensive LOCs in those battles that you don't have in Iraq (you also don't have that kind of leakage in Iraq either).

What leads me to say that it's an infantry fight is no better example than the Battle of Berlin. The Germans not only hold the building and the resulting heights, forcing infantry to evict them but they also blow up the building (and if planned right) right onto the street for further obstacles and then use the rubble as new fortifications. Armour in the lead in such a fight would be at a severe disadvantage.

And tanks can't go into the sewers.

Edit: Oh, I realized my mistake. I didn't specified a MOUT environment and left open to interruptation that I included open manouver. My mistake on this.

tankervet

Yes Sir. In this aspect I agree with you. Thats why you MUST have infantry for the mout ops. We can do alot in tanks but going into sewers is not one of them! If anything this is proof that its a combined arms fight. Inf can do alot by themselves and Armor can do alot by themselves but in the Urban fight neither can operate without the other.

Officer of Engineers

Actually in a MOUT environment, neither of you can do without the engineers. The most unsung of the combat arms.

tankervet

Yes Sir, the sappers are highly understimated. They proved there worth time and time again with us. I would never want that job myself!

Ray

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Shek

Sir,
There is no disagreement from this side of the pond that tanks are not the end all be all in urban operations. However, OIF has confirmed the Israeli experience that tanks and armored vehicles add a lot more to the urban fight that was previously believed. While each operating environment is different, I think that you are underestimating the ability of tanks to influence the battle. While I don't have any particular articles in mind to point to about Fallujah, tanks absolutely provided an advantage in that fight despite the restricted terrain that you find in many Iraqi cities. This experience has been replicated throughout Iraq.

As an example, in Mosul, even with some of the restrictive terrain, our Strykers with slat armor could go down about 85% of the alleys and roads. Only in the ancient old city were the Strykers simply too large. Take the slat off, and they could have gone down some of the main thoroughfares there (the Trophy active armor system will allow taking off the slat). So, that unit used HMMWVs and had their John Deere Gators ready for any CASEVAC contingency where a HMMWV couldn't fit (they even mounted a medium machine gun to it!).

After just a week or so, I was able to use the aerial imagery to determine whether my Strykers could fit down a particular road/alley, so it is very possible to analyze imagery and understand what the size limitations will be of roadways.

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

Officer of Engineers

Gentlemen,

What the Brigadier and I have been saying is that Iraq and in fact the Middle East is not a good indicator of tough MOUT environments or even tough MOUT opponents. As I stated before, Operation THUNDER RUN would not have had happenned in Grozny.

Shek

Sir,
I think it may be a case of all of us arguing the same think in different terms, resulting in everybody talking past the other.

Technically, it wouldn't have been required. The Chechens let the Russians in

In seriousness, though, I would have to disagree with this statement. Would it have been bloodier than what was experienced driving into the heart of Baghdad? Yes. However, if you look at the tactics and equipment used by the Russians, it doesn't even come close to comparing to the what 3 ID executed. The difference is even more pronounced now since UAVs have been fielded down to the company level and with the digitization of communications.

Just from rereading what I posted way back, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_r...MR1289.ch2.pdf, these differences are like night and day.

However, I would also state that I don't think that a thunder run strategy would have been used. The Thunder Run had a clear design to thrust into the center of gravity of the Regime in order to prove to the world that we could move at will and to strike a dagger through the morale of those defending the Regime. I don't believe that there was an equivalent center of gravity strategy in Grozny, but of that I could be wrong.

In any event, I'd look at Fallujah II as the model that would be more likely to have been used, and armored vehicles would play a critical role.

Officer of Engineers

Reading it over, yes we are.

I don't think it would happenned at all, at least not the way it happenned in Baghdad. I would expect a hell of alot more recee and alot more fire support both artillery and air (of which both were absent).

My 1st read was "What the hell did you do that for?"


Thank you, Major, I was looking for this.