Jaeger

My 1st new thread!
Anyway, I wanted to initiate a discussion on urban warfare...
1st, what vehicle offers the best mix of lethality, protection & mobility in an urban context? (we know what can happen to tanks and LAVs )
2nd, Does it make sense for armies to train division/corps level units specialsing in urban warfare?
3rd, would the use of nonlethal chemical disabling agents contavene treaties etc?

__________________
The Truth alone triumphs.

Jaeger

Actually IMHO, I believe that the Israeli T55/Centurion tank-APC conversions are a good bet... Especially in conjunction with armored AAA gun units.

Any others?

Anon

AAA tracks are awesome in MOUT. We trained with the M-162A2 Vulcan AAA system in MOUT, it was very effective. I know also that the Russians developed a special version of the ZSU-23/4 for ops in Grozny as well.

What makes them so useful besides the sheer amount of firepower they can deliver is their excellent elevation and traverse rates.

Non lethal chems such as CS are very common on the battlefield.

The Israeli Merkava is a good urban tank too because of it's ability to house its own infantry team.

Ray

Firstly, Urban Warfare as faced by the US in the future will not be in Europe with wide roads etc. It will be in the Middle East or in Asia. The opposing force will not be around wide roads, the few wide roads that will be there. They will be crowded areas and narrow roads and even lanes. Tanks will not be able to operate there.

I believe that the US has eqpt that can look through the buildings. If that be the case, then one aircraft / satellite will 'look in' and another aircraft will destroy. It will also marginalise 'colateral damage'.

__________________


"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

lemontree

Most APCs should do the job. However, it is to be remembed that all such veh are just battle taxis or carriers. Troops have to dismount and expose them selves to complete their tasks.

All heavy wpns cause too much of damage, which in turn causes civillian casualities. That has to be minimim. Hence, a 7.62/5.56 mm gpmg is sufficient to provide the suppressing fire that is required.

Bergrom

Despite its age, the .50 M2-HB machine gun is a surprisingly effective MOUT weapon capable of actually creating mouseholes for use as alternate building entry points. The main weakness of the .50 is most configurations expose the gunner to counter fire.

As was aptly pointed out by Ray, most likely MOUT engagements will involve narrow roads and short engagement ranges. That would rule out most tanks, infantry carriers, and armored cars. However, I can think of one intriging possibility and there are no doubt others.

The Cadillac-Gage Scout is only 2.057m in width with a 2.743m wheelbase. It has a length of 5.003m. It is almost a third more narrow than the Bradley IFV and a bit shorter creating a smaller footprint and profile. It can mount a variety of weapons including a combo of a .50/12.7mm - 40mm GL or twin .50Cal/12.7mm machine guns. It is armored and also has an enclosed power turret, run flat tires, and a smoke grenade system. (all C-G Scout info taken from Jane's Tanks and Combat Vehicles Recognition Guide, 2 ed. by Christopher F. Foss). I don't know how RPG proff the Scout is. That might pose a problem. The lack of night vision devices would also need to be addressed.

The key is the vehicle must be armored to at least protect the crew against small arms fire, shell fragments, and anti-vehicle mines even while engaging the enemy. Proof against heavy machine guns and RPGs would be a plus. For armament, the vehicle should probably be equipped with heavy machine guns or light cannon. I would prefer heavy machine guns because you could still carry plentiful ammuniition to sustain the fight. However, a rocket launcher might be useful as well.

As an additional caveat, vehicles committed to combat in a MOUT environment must have supporting infantry or they become easy targets for enemy forces.

Your point about how wise is it to train MOUT units at divisional and corps levels is interesting. I would have to say not. It would be better to train battalions to specialize in MOUT and group them in separate MOUT brigades with specialized support elements designed specifically for fighting in built up areas. Equip them with armed and armored supply trucks and other vehicles designed to travel narrow, winding roads and survive heavy small arms fire. Such MOUT Battalions would require more trained snipers, a special ops type snatch element, and new commo gear to better deal with the electrical interference rampant in urban environments.

As to non-lethal chemical devices, I would have to say it is acceptable. However, realize there are always people who are fatally allergic to HC smoke and/or CS or asthmatic. Non lethal really means not designed to kill. In Panama, we were not allowed to use them without express permission of the theater commander. As a lowly rifle platoon leader, I had my doubts as to whether I would get the release in time to do any good if I had needed them! I think they are best deployed in a MOUT environment to deny an enemy certain avenues of approach. Chuck a CS grenade down a sewer entrance and periodically refresh. If they try that route, you will likely hear them coughing, hehehe. You could do the same to adjacent rooms, etc. One problem with any chemical agent is environment. Unless there is no wind, I would suggest they be best employed inside enclosed places. Note that use of even CS in a military environment will send the liberals running in circles like chickens with their collective heads chopped off. However, it strikes me as more humane than just gunning down everyone you meet or stemming a tide of panicked civilians with gunfire.

Anon

Hey bro, what unit were you with in Panama?

I got chopped to SOUTHCOM from my unit and sent down there for the invasion.

Not too often i run into a fellow Op Just Cause vet, there weren't that many of us involved compared to ODS and OIF.

Good to make your acquaintance.

Have any run ins with howler monkeys while you were down there?

Bergrom

I went down twice with 3/6 Infantry out of Fort Polk, LA. The 5th Infantry Division supplied the Mechanized Battalion and we were scheduled to replace 4/6 Infantry in January or February of 1990 (I forget, lol). Anyway, I was on leave when the op went down and really torqued about it. Combat ops were still ongoing when I arrived in country to sign for the vehicles and gear but shortly thereafter, Fort Polk's commitment was scaled back to a company and I redeployed stateside. We did roll with 4/6 a couple of times while down there the first time. My unit returned in May-August 1990 as the company Mech element where we served as QRF, etc. We were posted to the old PDF barracks on Fort Amador. Ours was the final Mech deployment. After we finished, we shipped the M113's back to Fort Polk.

My comments on use of CS came from a near mission we had involving President Endarra's wedding. Trouble was expected and my platoon, reinforced with two more tracks, was to seal off the downtown peninsula and prevent anyone from coming or going. Another element was to sweep in and secure the wedding party and American VIPs. We had an on-order mission to secure the VIPS if the other element could not execute their portion of the operation. Use of gas to disperse crowds was brought up and were informed that release of such was at the theater level.

Looking back, I am so damn glad the mission fell through. Imagine sitting at a roadblock with a wave of panicked civilians fleeing a shootout downtown charging straight at you. You're not supposed to let them through, ya can't gas them, ya can't shoot them, ya can't bayonet them. I guess I could have asked politely, lol.

Seriously, it would have been a grave problem. Nor could I have let them close with my men. Once close, they could have pulled grenades or knives and done some harm. Yet had I shot them, I can see the headlines now: "US Army unit massacres Panamanian civilians." Something like that actually had happend about 20 years before.

I am afraid I am only a veteran of Just Cause in the broadest sense of the word and would not want to be construed as misrepresenting the level of my participation. However, it was a mission we trained heavily for and expected to execute. I can still remember standing in the hatch with the engines racing, loaded for bear, and waiting for the execution order.

Lord, that was so long ago. There, I answered your question and no doubt more than you really wanted to know.

Anon

Nah, not too much info at all. It's so rare i run into someone else that was downthere that's it's good to talk to someone that did.

We all serve how we're asked, and when, we can't choose the how or why's of it. Most of the shooting was over pretty fast, so you didn't really miss all that much.

There was this nice rock concert at the Papal Nunzia though...bet you'd have enjoyed that part of it.

Officer of Engineers

Think you will even find Battalion to be combersome. The ideal mix is a Combat Team (ie, Company/Commando/Troop Group, essentially a rifle/arm'd coy supported by a cbt spt coy). There is a small debate within the CF and the ADF whether do you really need battalion and whether today's technologies would allow Bde to command 9 CTs.

__________________
Chimo

Broken

In urban fights like Falluja, it appears OPFOR is using tunnels and underground hidy-holes. Would it be useful to have sensors to locate underground structures? There is handy gadget called a portable Ground Penetration Radar which can locate tunnels and buried munitions fairly well.

Bergrom

Officer of Engineers,

For actual combat purposes, you may be right. Most action will be platoon and even squad level.

Generally speaking, the smallest sustainable independent unit is the battalion. Does not make much sense to assign a full detail of trucks, tankers, and support personnel (mechanics, radio techs, etc) to a company. It happens at the Special Ops level, I know. But most of those guys are also heavily cross trained. Not to mention that even company/teams have to coordinate their actions with other elements. A city is too big for just one company. Having them clustered by battalion provides a level of command and control needed even if the the subordinate elements are acting essentially independent.

One option might be a return to a regimental system placing a group of essentially independent MOUT Teams under the umbrella of regiment that would provide combat service support and other logistical coordination needs. Perhaps the Regiment might have a separate sniper pool or access to another unconventional weapon system that could be allocated on a per mission need that is too expensive (cost or availability) to distribute to Company/Teams individual MTOE.

BTW, just reread you post. You confused my by with how you used Team. In my mind (now old and long since out of the service), a Combat Team refererred to a mixed company and Task Force was a batlaion of mixed elements. Your Combat Team Group sounds like my regiment idea. A form ofthese ideas is probably the best way to go.

Sorry. Just woke up and eveidently can't read until my eyes straighten out.

Anon

We can always do what we did for Panama, ODS, Afghanistan, and OIF.

Custom build a force based on anticipated need. Give the theater component commander the pieces he needs based on anticipated operations, and the ability to chop and assign those units as he best sees fit prior to the commencement of hostilities, and continuing on through the evolution and implementation of the battle plan.

If a units axis of advance or AO is to include extensive MOUT action when their TF is formulated they get extra assets to assist in that mission. If their AOA/AA is swamp/marsh, they get extra light inf or air assault forces, if it's a major highway system they get extra motor forces, if it's a desert as it was during ODS they get extra armor, etc, etc, etc.

Certainly unanticapted needs will appear as the various TFs advance and engage, but in that case have any extra unassigned assets chopped to the lowest practical force command so that they can be quickly assigned and reassigned to units based on actual or projected need as the battle plan evolves, and based on enemy action/reaction.

That's my idea of the best solution.

Of course i'm a dinosaur that still bemoans the US Armys transition away from the Land-Air doctrine and force structures, so what do i know.

Officer of Engineers

Well, this dinosaur has started forgetting things. You guys don't belong to the Canadian Army and I have to stop assuming everyone non-commie is just like my army.

Yes, gentlemen, CT is a mixed company (coy), most formed in an ad-hoc basis from a battle group (Task Force to you gents), another ad-hoc echelon from a brigade group. What we've done is to form the basis of a CT core to which we then can add assets as needed. The CT is the bare minimum combined arms you can field (again, essentially a rifle or an armoured company re-enforced by a combat support company). You might attached other brigade assets such as snipers but we start with the CT.

Under the British/Canadian/Australian system, the Company Officer Commanding is a Major, not a Captain as in the US. Thus, there is the added knowledge base needed to exploit such an echelon. In a MOUT situation, CT would rely on Battle Group or Brigade for sustainment but essentially, it is an independent combined arms unit.

Officer of Engineers

That gadget is called a grenade.

Fallujah ain't Stalingrad with sewers large enough and deep enough to survive artillery and the front lines. Fallujah also didn't have the time of the Viet-Congs to establish a tunnel network for their bases.