Shek

Many folks that discuss survivability on the web are talking out of their a$$. Go with what people on the ground are saying about vehicle survivability and you can't be far off of the truth.

__________________
"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

Firral

The possible reason, that insurgents of Iraq have no modern rockets to РПГ-7. Thus using РПГ-7 with weak rockets they are exposed to retaliation from the tank (that naturally very dangerously), but do not harm to the tank. Besides it is necessary to be trained what to shoot from RPG-7 effectively.
It is much easier and more safe to use a lot of explosive at road (a powerful land mine). From it practically there is no rescue and for its use it is not necessary to climb under bullets.

__________________

zraver

crews are only part of the story, the Abrams still enjoys a great reputation among her crews. By September of 2006 the US had suffered at least 20 but less than 25 Abrams losses in combat from August 2003, less than 2% of viehicle losses. Backing this up are the following sources.


Since the Iraq insurgency heated up in autumn of 2003, the US Army's combat losses include at least 20 M1 Abrams tanks, 50 Bradley fighting vehicles, 20 Stryker wheeled combat vehicles, 20 M113 armored personnel carriers, and 250 Humvees. The number of vehicles lost in battle comes to nearly 1,000 after adding in heavy and medium trucks and trailers, mine-clearing vehicles, and Fox wheeled reconnaissance vehicles. Nearly all these losses were caused by improvised explosive devices in Iraq

Asia Times Online :: Middle East News - How the US Army's being worn down in Iraq

In September 2006 Senetaor Shelby authorized 50 million for Abrams combat losses.

Senator Richard C. Shelby

Abrams cost 2,350,000 USD

Army Guide

50,000,000 (Senator) divided by 2,350,000= 21 (Asia times claims at least 20).

Thats is three mutally agreeing sources 1 media, 1 goverment, 1 manufacturer that seem to indicate Abrams losses through Sep of 06 at less than 25 units.

The same Asia times articles claim that in total the US has lost over 1000 veihicles total. 1000/20 is 2% So Abrams make up jsut 2% of the combat losses. Israel lost more thanks than that in 30 days, Russia lost more than that in 3 days.

Shek

Zraver,

My point was that the RPG threat is typically overblown by armchair generals on the web, as per migo's post, where he stated that his relatives thought highly of the M1 vs. RPG.

As far as your numbers, they are off. There have been far more combat loss Abrams, which should be somewhere in the 100-300 range by now. Not all are catastrophic kills (these should range around 30, as the Army Times reported back in Jan 2006 that the # was 20), with the majority requiring complete depot rebuilds (not overhaul, but rebuild). As an example, 1CAV had 28 M1 combat losses during their time in Sadr City in 2004-5.

zraver

Shek, are you counting veihicles damaged and returned to duty? I am only counting losses whee the tank effectively was removed form the army rolls fro any where from depot level rebuild to write off.

The RPG can be very effective vs the Abrams or any tank, but its a suicide weapon. To reliably defeat an MBT you need a high angle shot to get at the top or you need to attack from behind, both moves isolate you from friendlies and mark you for the tanks buddies.

Given my knowledge of tanks and my feild craft I am pretty sure I could kill a tank with an AT-4 (more familiar to me than the RPG) but I don't think I could get away. And thats the rub with manpads they require a level of skill that is rare and gaining that skill in combat is neigh impossible because of the ways in which it has to be employed to be effective.

Shek

I am talking combat loss. Taken off the property book and replaced. Not damaged, fixed at unit maintenance or -30 level, and then put back into the fight. Combat losses can be fixed at depot.

Firral

As well as any other weapon: all depends on skill of its use. If you correctly will organize an ambush you can count that you will avoid a return strike. As a rule some groups are created.
For example three groups: one group is a group of the supervision (investigation), the second group - a striking force, the third group - group of a cover of withdrawal.
The striking force to share on three units: the first for example strikes from the front, the second for example from flank, and the third reserve.
Thus if you the participant of one of units of a striking force (are armed RPG-7) you can make some shots. After that the group of a cover of withdrawal, will give you some time to leave.

zraver

Not quite that easy, to effectively use an RPG vs an Abrams you have to be above (easily trapped in a building) or behind it (in the midst of enemy infantry), this means your isolated by terrain as well as the targets escorts.

Firral

It is necessary to choose a place of an ambush correctly. For example the best there where the road is narrowed and is turn. For example mountain road, road to city, road limited by ravines and the river, etc. I think something similar can be and in Iraq though and it is much less than in Afghanistan. Then having organized an ambush you can separate a unit of armies of the opponent, turn of road, and to limit their movement by its narrowness. Then one of units of a striking force will not allow an infantry of the enemy to prevent to you, and you will engage with struggle against the tank.
Naturally if battle occurs in a field and at you insufficiently not trained infantry your chances to survive with RPG-7 with old weak rockets are very small.

PS: Certainly the ambush is completely not simply, and you should have still more enough luck and success that it has gone right.

zraver

In the 80's in afgahnistan the Mujahadeen didn't use the RPG in the anti-armor role. Instead they used AT mines and Milan ATGM's a much more effective combo than the suicide troop with an RPG. RPG's jsut dont have the range or power for dealing with combined arms units.

Firral

I consider that you are mistaken in it. At least I have some memoirs about the Afghani war of 80th years in which it is described attacks on columns of armies. RPG was the favourite weapon as: was very simple and reliable, had small weight, cheap and did not demand too long training. Were often used RPG-7 and RPG-2 made in China.
Certainly at an attack on the tank, it is more reliable to use a powerful mine as at you can not be time for 7-9 shots (average quantity of hits on Т-72Б for its failure). Against armoured personnel carriers and other vehicles it is successful enough.
However in conditions of city battle (I think such most of all in Iraq now) it is possible to use successfully enough RPG-7. The reason of absence of a plenty of ambushes is an absence of well organized and trained groups of rebels (quantity more than 20 person) which are necessary for the organization of an attack. Therefore they use mines as it does not demand many efforts.

Garry

If I understood correctly - the tank group which is not trained to cover team members may lose tanks to RPG-7... if enemy makes many shots from short distance.

However a trained group in a good terrain should not let this happen.... i.e. they would not go into a narrow site nor let tank killer groups to make those 7-10 shots per tank from short distance

Firral

All depends on skill of organizers of an ambush and skill of on whom it is arranged. At movement commanders should consider sites of a place, and try to shun them.
For example in Afghanistan, at movement it was impossible to avoid narrow sites, and on these sites in advance from helicopters the group of an infantry for check of a site and its capture under the control landed. At movement of automobile columns the attention of training by the harmonious action of " group of battle guards " (I do not know a synonym of this name in the American army in English) was paid at an attack. " Group of battle guards " should not allow to organizers of an ambush to shoot freely vehicles and people.
At movement with tanks and battle vehicles - trained joint to actions of an infantry and vehicles first minutes of battle.

el_guapo

RPGs didn't win the war in the Soviet-Afghan war. The Stinger did, and other US aided weapons such as a 120mm heavy mortar. The problem with the RPG was the poor range. It was very difficult to get close enough to Soviet tanks. Soviet heavy machineguns could cut down Mujahadeen long before a RPG can get close to effective tank out Soviet armor. Soviets lost because Mujahadeen was destroying Soviet supply lines. They couldn't even touch a Soviet tank for the most part. Sure if you are sneaky, and have a good ambush with terrain on your side RPGs can be effective, but as in case of Soviet-Afghan War, it was a gigantic risk to try to get close to a tank especially in the open battlefield. Soviet bases were invincible as well until the US gave the Afghans weapons such as 120mm mortars that annihilated once invincible Soviet bases. Afghans used the mountains, cliffs, and hills to their advantage, and would attack from elevated places downwards towards roads used by the Soviets.

Firral

In my opinion the reason of the ending of the Afghani war of 80th years was not the weapon. The reason was not military, but political defeat of the USSR.
Range RPG-7 is comparable to similar anti-tank grenade launchers with uncontrollable rockets (on the motionless purposes: rocket PG-7VL - up to 500 meters, rocket PG-7VR - up to 300 meters, M72A7 - up to 350 meters, AT4 up to 400 meters, Carl Gustav up to 700 meters). The reason of its use or not use - is tactics. At an ambush in mountain bottlenecks RPG-7 and other grenade launchers were successfully applied. However in the open battle field or at good an anti-ambush counteraction, grenade launchers were ineffective.