The use of tanks in urban areas ?

thecommietommy

Watching a documentary on Tiger tanks they mentioned that the Germans quickly learned from their invasion of Poland not to try and use tanks in urban areas. Does that still hold true to this day ?

I would have thought a tank would scare anyone sh!tless, even infantry with RPG's etc as maybe apart form hitting the back of the tank where the fuel and ammo is stored, it would basically hardly dent a modern tank ?

( Hope Manic Moran reports on this one, he's the real deal when it comes to knowledge about this type of stuff :cool: )

Morpheus

Here let me google that for you!

thecommietommy

Morpheus wrote: »

Here let me google that for you!

Well thanks for that altough it did turn up mainly mainly information on sewerage and drainage tanks etc !!!! Here this was the best the article I found, but it's full of if, but's and maybe's. However taking in the if, but's and maybe's unlike the Germans in WW2, it appears that modern warfare sees a use for tanks in urban areas.

http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/feature-urban-armor.htm

Jawgap

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well thanks for that altough it did turn up mainly mainly information on sewerage and drainage tanks etc !!!! Here this was the best the article I found, but it's full of if, but's and maybe's. However taking in the if, but's and maybe's unlike the Germans in WW2, it appears that modern warfare sees a use for tanks in urban areas.

http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-06/feature-urban-armor.htm

Your Google-Fu is weak, old man......:)

The Yanks seem to think tanks supported by infantry is ok in urban areas.....

FM 3-06 Combined Arms Operations in Urban Terrain - this version is about 10 years old and I'd be surprised if it's nto been updated since then

Donny5

thecommietommy wrote: »

Well thanks for that altough it did turn up mainly mainly information on sewerage and drainage tanks etc !!!!

Maybe you have SafeSearch on? The first four pages are all combat footage of Syrian armour faring rather badly for me.

Stovepipe

Sometimes, a tank, ie, a main battle tank, appearing on a street is enough to scare off low-level rubbish like street rioters and looters but anyone taking one into confined streets against a prepared enemy, even with modern tanks, is chancing his arm. In the case of the Germans in Poland, it was often a case of Panzer 1/2s being engaged with direct-fired field guns. They often resorted to using field guns or mobile self-propelled guns to blow down buildings to kill anti-tank teams, which kind of defeats the purpose of capturing a town or city intact. In Chechnya, the Russians found that they needed the 30mm gun on the BMP, instead of the standard 73mm and they had to relearn urban warfare with vehicles the hard way.Either way, it's an extremely difficult task.

regards
Stovepipe

Jawgap

Anyone remember all the fuss about the thunder runs through Baghdad?

Stovepipe

The Americans did something similar in WW 2, by advancing along streets at high speed, firing multiple .5s to keep the enemies' heads down. Anything that got in the way was shot up with 75s unless it was too big to nail in one shot. If that happened, they would bring down 105/155mm artillery to smash hardpoints of resistance. All very Blitzkreig, except going the other way.

regards
Stovepipe

goldie fish

Have you heard of "world of tanks"?

thebigfella1

Chechyan war is your best research material.
quick view:
1st russian assualt on gronzy lost the majority of there APCs and armoured veh's.

2nd Att, lost an "acceptable" level.

They must be used in tight cohesion with INF for protection and at same time assist the INF invaluably against Dug in En pos.

Manic Moran

The capabilities which make the tank useful in open terrain are the same which make it useful in urban terrain: Mobile, armoured firepower. Until you can come up with something else which is as tough to kill, can get most anywhere (like through that barricade), and then kill things when it gets to where it's going, the tank will have its place.

Now, the vulnerabilities of the tank become accentuated, and measures must be taken to mitigate these vulnerabilities: You don't want to just drive straight down main street.



OK. Maybe we did just drive straight down main street.

But you don't want to just drive straight down main street without bearing in mind that crunchies can get much closer to you before they are identified, and have better shots at your vulnerable areas.

Now, there are better ways of dealing with certain specific problems. If a building is offending you, a 6" SPG in the direct fire role is probably a better way of solving the issue. If you have lots of things in high structures, maybe you want a tracked AA gun. But for general purpose capability against most anything, a tank does quite nicely. Sure, it is theoretically possible to develop an urban tank, like the BMP-T, but they tend to be a tad pricey for such a single-use item.

So just take care of your tank, and use that intelligently, you'll be fine.

Cork boy 55

In the Syrian civil war
Assad army, the SAA has two major problems
One it is top heavy with Armour, artillery, air defense and support units and not enough light Infantry which are the troops they need to fight the light infantry they are facing
In addition what infantry he was are outnumbered and many are cut off in isolated remote garrsions.
as a result he is serious short of infantry for conducting Urban operations assaults and search destroy operation which require loyal, professional, trained motivated troops due to nature of fighting. semi-loyal, milita or hasty trained conscripts are useless

As a a result the regime has the huge advantage in firepower and amour
and the rebels in infantry numbers. The SAA is forced to deploy units heavy in amour in Urban search and destroy missions with poor results
BDRMs and BTRS have disappeared from the streets, BMPS and old tanks T-55/62 are suffering heavy losses, Modern T-72 s are still quite tough and can withstand quite a bit though according to the SAA Tankers very few are "killed"and most damage comes from mines/IEDs.
so what we are seeing in Damascus city and in some of the other urban battles
is a lot of combat between light infantry and Armoured units poorly supported by infantry


The ANNA (ANNA = (Abkhazian network news agency ) )
which I believe is a front for FSB pro-SAA propaganda
for a Russian speaking audience is producing some amazing unique footage of the Urban Tank war from the SAA point of view using cameras mounted on tanks

Some of their videos have english translation They are up on youtube
here at this channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/newsanna


Here's a sample

Syrian (SAA) tanks, armored vehicles and infantry fight insurgents in key positions in the suburbs of Damascus of Darayya.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1znK1Kl5Gs

Interview (with English, press captions buttons) of SAA tank commander

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQKOZJfwu4

Syrian Arab army fighting militants in Darayya. On the way to the positions of the militants, a tank platoon was ambushed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Rk_erL98E

Today in Darayya we lost friends. Twenties heroes gone into battle, ready to fight, but who expected that, it will beat the Russian arms. Shot of the Russian RPG-29 "Vampire" provoked the detonation of ammunition tank .
GRAPHIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn1NWU3nGQc

markhar9877

I think the video in this thread perfectly illustrates the perils of operating tanks in an urban environment without infantry support.

I WOULDNT GET INTO A RUSSIAN TANK IF YOU PAID ME

It also perfectly illustrates that the rebels don't have enough anti tank weapons. If they did the lack of reaction would have resulted in all the tanks being killed. After the first tank brewed up, the others just sat there practically inviting another attack. You might have thought those lessons would have been part of the training.

I read somewhere that when Soviet tanks were putting down the Hungarian uprising in 1956 there was at least one situation here upturned plates placed on the street stopped tanks advancing because they looked like mines. That and the plentiful use of Molotov cocktails dropped into open hatches from buildings.

Nasty!

Cork boy 55

Manic Moran wrote: »

(.)

Sure, it is theoretically possible to develop an urban tank, like the BMP-T, but they tend to be a tad pricey for such a single-use item.

I think it makes sense for the Russians to have a vehicle like that (BMPT)
i.e. AFVs with emphasis on protection and firepower rather than mobility.
There is a very low probability that Russia will find itself fighting a major conventional war or expeditionary warfare far from home but there is a very high probability that Russia could find itself fighting a renewed insurgency in the north Caucasus fighting crack light infantry in urban or close terrain, there is a low intensity insurgency bubbling away there all the time.
It looks like a item that might be good for export as well for certain countries
Not sure why they called it a BMP as it is completely different to the other BMPs series
That said I am not sure if they got the design right here,
It does not seem to have reached mass production yet and they have only exported a few
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMPT
Interesting report on the BMPT Russian TV(with english subtitle press cc button) Host is nuts (firepower demo starts at 9:30)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB5imc6wIss

They have also designed a new Heavy APC/IFV called BTR-T with a tank chassis again not sure if they are mass producing it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BTR-T

long range shooter

markhar9877 wrote: »

I think the video in this thread perfectly illustrates the perils of operating tanks in an urban environment without infantry support.

I WOULDNT GET INTO A RUSSIAN TANK IF YOU PAID ME

It also perfectly illustrates that the rebels don't have enough anti tank weapons. If they did the lack of reaction would have resulted in all the tanks being killed. After the first tank brewed up, the others just sat there practically inviting another attack. You might have thought those lessons would have been part of the training.

I read somewhere that when Soviet tanks were putting down the Hungarian uprising in 1956 there was at least one situation here upturned plates placed on the street stopped tanks advancing because they looked like mines. That and the plentiful use of Molotov cocktails dropped into open hatches from buildings.

Nasty!

You dont need expensive anti tank weapons to demobilize A armoured vehice.IED
Molotow coctails,Napalm and thermite is more than enough.

All this could be Made in Your kitchen:eek:

Donny5

long range shooter wrote: »

You dont need expensive anti tank weapons to demobilize A armoured vehice.IED
Molotow coctails,Napalm and thermite is more than enough.

All this could be Made in Your kitchen:eek:

I would love to see someone try to use thermite against an armoured vehicle. No faster way to end up dead.

long range shooter

Donny5 wrote: »

I would love to see someone try to use thermite against an armoured vehicle. No faster way to end up dead.

Very simple.you make it as a sticky bomb,and throw it from a rooftop or window high above the tank,in a narrow street or alley.

http://youtu.be/EoUb7jiFj5Q

If you hit the top of the turret,the result will be this;)

http://youtu.be/8ARjuTKdiIk

If you hit behind the turret you will most likely disable the tank when it hits the engine compartment or fuel tank.

Donny5

long range shooter wrote: »

Very simple.you make it as a sticky bomb,and throw it from a rooftop or window high above the tank,in a narrow street or alley.

http://youtu.be/EoUb7jiFj5Q

If you hit the top of the turret,the result will be this;)

http://youtu.be/8ARjuTKdiIk

If you hit behind the turret you will most likely disable the tank when it hits the engine compartment or fuel tank.

You're kidding, right? Thermite would do nothing to tank armour, except in ludicrous quantities (10's to 100's of Kilograms). Have you ever dealt with thermite? It's not an explosive.

long range shooter

Donny5 wrote: »

You're kidding, right? Thermite would do nothing to tank armour, except in ludicrous quantities (10's to 100's of Kilograms). Have you ever dealt with thermite? It's not an explosive.

Not thermite,but thermate would do more damage,and if you use copper oxide instead of iron oxide,it would incinerate with more heat as well.
And as another option the jewel bomb,or combined with napalm,it should be enough to disable a tank at its weak points,the top.
And yes I have dealt with thermite,I know it's not an explosive.its an incienary weapon.
The videos was just ment as a guide.

Donny5

long range shooter wrote: »

Not thermite,but thermate would do more damage,and if you use copper instead of aluminium,it would incinerate with more heat as well.
And as another option the jewel bomb,or combined with napalm,it should be enough to disable a tank at its weak points,the top.
And yes I have dealt with thermite,I know it's not an exploitive.its an incienary weapon.
The videos was just ment as a guide.

Even with thermate, there just isn't enough in any man-portable grenade to disable a modern tank's armour. You could maybe weld some tracks together if it was stationary long enough or permanently block the barrel, but you have a seriously warped idea about the power of those grenades.

long range shooter

Donny5 wrote: »

Even with thermate, there just isn't enough in any man-portable grenade to disable a modern tank's armour. You could maybe weld some tracks together if it was stationary long enough or permanently block the barrel, but you have a seriously warped idea about the power of those grenades.

A single grenade would probably not be enough,but if a hole platoon throws them at the same time,I wouldn't be inside that tank.
And it all depends how big you make them.
And you could also like you said go for the barrel or the tracks to disable it.
It has never been tested on a modern tank,so nobody would know.
But my point is,it doesn't take much to stop a tank,if needed.
The Finns during the winter war used Molotov coctaiils with great success.
But I am sure today's modern tanks have taken this into account.but all tanks have their weak points,it's just about finding it

Stovepipe

@lrs, the Finns succeeded against basic Russian tanks like the T26 because it had simple vents for crew air, which admitted burning fuel into the crew compartment. Later tanks , such as the T34 and KV1 had better venting arrangements and the Finns needed Panzerfausts, multiple demolition block charges, magnetic mines and 75mm anti-tank guns to deal with them. Modern tanks have much better ventilation and air conditioning and are pretty much impervious to the average petrol bomb. Modern tanks also have automatic fire-fighting systems that make the notion of trying to burn out the engine compartment with a petrol bomb a waste of time.

regards
Stovepipe

long range shooter

Stovepipe wrote: »

@lrs, the Finns succeeded against basic Russian tanks like the T26 because it had simple vents for crew air, which admitted burning fuel into the crew compartment. Later tanks , such as the T34 and KV1 had better venting arrangements and the Finns needed Panzerfausts, multiple demolition block charges, magnetic mines and 75mm anti-tank guns to deal with them. Modern tanks have much better ventilation and air conditioning and are pretty much impervious to the average petrol bomb. Modern tanks also have automatic fire-fighting systems that make the notion of trying to burn out the engine compartment with a petrol bomb a waste of time.

regards
Stovepipe

Sir,Mr stovepipe.
I was referring to thermate.you dont put out fire from thermate with automatic fire fighting systems.it burns at 2800 deg,and doesn't need oxygen supply to burn.
And the heat generated would probably cook the crew alive inside the tank.
And a well placed Molotov cocktail through a ventilation port would allow gasoline into the crew compartment and force them to open hatches or abandon the tank,or at least blind it for short period of time.

Cork boy 55

"The AN-M14 TH3 incendiary hand grenade is used to destroy equipment. It can damage, immobilize, or destroy vehicles, weapons systems, shelters, or munitions.

The thermate filler of the AN-M14 grenade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a 1/2-inch homogeneous steel plate"


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m14-th3.htm

0.5 inch only lethal against light AFVs only not MBT

long range shooter

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

"The AN-M14 TH3 incendiary hand grenade is used to destroy equipment. It can damage, immobilize, or destroy vehicles, weapons systems, shelters, or munitions.

The thermate filler of the AN-M14 grenade burns for 40 seconds and can burn through a 1/2-inch homogeneous steel plate"


http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m14-th3.htm

0.5 inch only

A grenade is made of 800g of thermite,I you make a a 3-5 kg homemade the effects would be greater.

BostonB

If you read this
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090325121120AAArsDg

It took an IED of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg. Another they reckoned was 500kg.

In general it seems very hard to knock out the Abrams anyway. You need a massive IED or get a really lucky hit. Considering the amount of a fire they came under its quite amazing how difficult it is to disable one.

Cork boy 55

long range shooter wrote: »

A grenade is made of 800g of thermite,I you make a a 3-5 kg homemade the effects would be greater.

Basically a large(shoe box size) Thermate incendiary hand-placed IED

I really don't know but I am guessing that the chemistry, engineering materials and "know how" required to build one that's works to spec(burn a hole thru top armour of a MBT) would be quite difficult also I guess homemade thermate ain't going be as good as a device produced in a factory.
You would also need a suicidal volunteer and place this large box on a flat part of the top of not/slow moving AFV and not get killed.
Quite a difficult undertaking between manufacture and the kill compared to your "normal" roadside bomb

I cannot recall a single Allied MBT being destroyed by a hand placed munition in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon off top of the head( i could be wrong here)

I have been observing the Syrian civil war closely.
I have seen two videos from Syrian civil war of T-72 and a T-62 being destroyed by hand placed attacks( Such videos would be very memorable to the suicidal bravery usually required)
One by a hand placed grenade thrown thew a open hatch
the other by someone throwing a grenade it down the barrel
Its possible the videos where faked for propaganda as well.
The vast Bulk of modern MBTs(T-72) knocked out where by roadside IED
Recently the rebels are getting large number of modern ant-tank rockets smuggled in so this is changing.
The Syrian rebels have a vast industry producing DIY weapons and they are not producing (AFAIK)
Anti-tank grenades of this type Why?

anti-tank hand grenades are considered obsolete against modern AFV and anti-tank handplaced IEDs are two cumbersome and dangerous to operator to give high chance of success and there are alternatives

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

If you read this
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090325121120AAArsDg

It took an IED of three M109A6 155 mm shells, with a total explosive weight of 34.5 kg. Another they reckoned was 500kg.

In general it seems very hard to knock out the Abrams anyway. You need a massive IED or get a really lucky hit. Considering the amount of a fire they came under its quite amazing how difficult it is to disable one.

It's all about hitting the weak spots.
A Abrahams tank can probably take 100 hits from an RPG,but it's that crucial round that hits,that makes the difference.

http://rense.com/general44/what.htm

BostonB

The US are going to be operating with far more overlapping defensive and offensive layers than other forces. Syria would be a very different scenario.

long range shooter

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Basically a large(shoe box size) Thermate incendiary hand-placed IED

I really don't know but I am guessing that the chemistry, engineering materials and "know how" required to build one that's works to spec(burn a hole thru top armour of a MBT) would be quite difficult also I guess homemade thermate ain't going be as good as a device produced in a factory.
You would also need a suicidal volunteer and place this large box on a flat part of the top of not/slow moving AFV and not get killed.
Quite a difficult undertaking between manufacture and the kill compared to your "normal" roadside bomb

I cannot recall a single Allied AFV being destroyed by a hand placed munition in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon off top of the head( i could be wrong here)


I have been observing the Syrian civil war closely.
I have seen two videos from Syrian civil war of T-72 and a T-62 being destroyed by hand placed attacks
One by a hand placed grenade thrown thew a open hatch
the other by someone throwing a grenade it down the barrel
Its possible the videos where faked for propaganda as well.
The vast Bulk of modern MBTs(T-72) knocked out where by roadside IED
Recently the rebels are getting large number of modern ant-tank rockets smuggled in so this is changing.

It's quite easy to make thermite.

http://youtu.be/gQUW7JgDGgE

As you can see a can filled with thermite goes through a 1/2 inch steel plate,imagine what 5 kg can do.

BostonB

The hard park is not making the bomb. Its getting close enough to a tank to place it.

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

The hard park is not making the bomb. Its getting close enough to a tank to place it.

Sticky bomb from a rooftop,or with a strong magnet.
Or on a parked tank,on a drive by,or sneak up on it.

Stovepipe

@lrs, Like I said before, when a tank is closed down for combat, all vents, ports and hatches are closed and crew air is drawn in thru a protected and filtered source, such as via the already protected engine compartment. A simple Molotov isn't going to do the job. Kills cause by individuals getting close enough to throw a device onto a tank as very, very rare. It tends to be mines, IEDS, RPGs and other types of anti-tank projectile, objects that enable the user to move thru the urban landscape. Apart from that, AFVs giving each other mutual fire support are very hard to sneak up on.

regards
Stovepipe

long range shooter

long range shooter wrote: »

You dont need expensive anti tank weapons to demobilize A armoured vehice.IED
Molotow coctails,Napalm and thermite is more than enough.

All this could be Made in Your kitchen:eek:

Stovepipe wrote: »

@lrs, Like I said before, when a tank is closed down for combat, all vents, ports and hatches are closed and crew air is drawn in thru a protected and filtered source, such as via the already protected engine compartment. A simple Molotov isn't going to do the job. Kills cause by individuals getting close enough to throw a device onto a tank as very, very rare. It tends to be mines, IEDS, RPGs and other types of anti-tank projectile, objects that enable the user to move thru the urban landscape. Apart from that, AFVs giving each other mutual fire support are very hard to sneak up on.

regards
Stovepipe

Well so that means that if you throw a Molotov cocktail inside the airvent,nothing would happen.find that hard to believe.
And yes the inside compartment is protected against gas,biological and nuclear particles created by a overpressure inside the tank,but would it stop liquid before it ignites coming into the crew compartment,and if so wouldn't the crew suffocate when the fire is stealing the oxygen?

BostonB

long range shooter wrote: »

Sticky bomb from a rooftop,or with a strong magnet.
Or on a parked tank,on a drive by,or sneak up on it.

It would need to be a massive bomb. Not that easily carried or dropped. Tanks would have air cover, and infantry support in APC's etc. I wouldn't like to be trying to drop a bomb on a tank in that situation. An IED or a Rocket from cover is the only thing thats feasible.

BostonB

long range shooter wrote: »

Well so that means that if you throw a Molotov cocktail inside the airvent,nothing would happen.find that hard to believe....

Considering fire is the big risk to a tank. I would find it hard to believe its not made as fireproof as its possible to make. Petrol bombs would be a common threat. The other problem is getting close enough to hit the tank with it. There also the risk a bullet, hits the bomb as you throw it. Wouldn't be a long term future in that tactic IMO.

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

It would need to be a massive bomb. Not that easily carried or dropped. Tanks would have air cover, and infantry support in APC's etc. I wouldn't like to be trying to drop a bomb on a tank in that situation. An IED or a Rocket from cover is the only thing thats feasible.

2-5 kg would do much damage if well placed,and if you combine it with napalm,it would burn even longer.
Or smaller of 1 kg thrown by many at the same time.
And off course best used in a narrow street or alley surrounded by tall buildings.
And with infantry and air support it will be a hit and run.

Stovepipe

Hi there,
lrs, you appear to labour under the illusion that an airvent in a modern tank allows direct access to the crew compartment. They don't. There are filtration systems, as well as indirect ducts, in the way, so that the crew are protected from such items as flammable bombs like Molotovs or infantry flamethrowers or smoke grenades. For anyone to have a hope of knocking out a tank with an improvised weapon, they'd have to stop the tank first, render it immobile so it can't reverse out of trouble, blind the crew's optics and neutralise any supporting infantry, before they can even consider breaking open the crew compartment. As you can understand, it takes a huge amount of coordinated effort and all the cards have to fall your way, ie, you have to achieve the above first without running out of men and resources. Apart from that, once you destroy the tank, you have to get away alive,too. Incidentally, what you don't see from the Syrian videos of fellas tank-busting is their failure/loss rate. Also, going back, the loss rate of Panzers against the Polish in urban areas was high because the Poles used artillery guns firing over open sights against thinly-armoured Pz 1/2/3s. Some Iraqis tried this in GW2 in Baghdad with 122mm and ZSU guns.

regards
Stovepipe

BostonB

long range shooter wrote: »

2-5 kg would do much damage if well placed,and if you combine it with napalm,it would burn even longer.
Or smaller of 1 kg thrown by many at the same time.
And off course best used in a narrow street or alley surrounded by tall buildings.
And with infantry and air support it will be a hit and run.

It won't you'd need much more than that, as the previous examples illustrate. You can't well place it well if your dropping it off a building. Besides which tanks won't be going down alley ways. They'll stick to wide streets and open squares.

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

It won't you'd need much more than that, as the previous examples illustrate. You can't well place it well if your dropping it off a building. Besides which tanks won't be going down alley ways. They'll stick to wide streets and open squares.

Depends on what scenario you are in.
If you are putting armoured vehicles in an urban environment,I don't think they expect it to be a motorway.
Lets say its through towns and villages in Ireland,perfect for an ambush.
However in Dublin city,the situation would be different.

Fattes

Watching a documentary on Tiger tanks they mentioned that the Germans quickly learned from their invasion of Poland not to try and use tanks in urban areas. Does that still hold true to this day ?

I would have thought a tank would scare anyone sh!tless, even infantry with RPG's etc as maybe apart form hitting the back of the tank where the fuel and ammo is stored, it would basically hardly dent a modern tank ?

Back to the original OP Question:

The US did this in Baghdad when they sent an armored column down route 6 and withdrew them quickly, it changed accepted doctrine on how to use tanks at the time tons of stuff on line about it if you want to look it up .

BostonB

long range shooter wrote: »

Depends on what scenario you are in.
If you are putting armoured vehicles in an urban environment,I don't think they expect it to be a motorway.
Lets say its through towns and villages in Ireland,perfect for an ambush.
However in Dublin city,the situation would be different.

I think you have this vision of tanks roaming at will and unsupported though alleyways. Thats just fantasy.

Stovepipe

Tanks can and do use alleys and back streets. Some of that Syrian footage shows them doing just that. The obvious risk is from close-quarter attack and the fact that long barrels can be snagged by street/urban furniture such as lighting poles, masts, walls, cables and wires and so on. Armoured cars, with shorter barrels and the ability to make a quick getaway have a better chance in confined spaces.
regards
Stovepipe

BostonB

I not sure you can hold up the Syrian's use of tanks as text book. Considering that the rebels seem to have knocked out a few and even captured them. The Syrian army doesn't seem to have learnt any of the lessons from the last 60yrs tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSn6jtBIqE

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

I not sure you can hold up the Syrian's use of tanks as text book. Considering that the rebels seem to have knocked out a few and even captured them. The Syrian army doesn't seem to have learnt any of the lessons from the last 60yrs tbh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlSn6jtBIqE

True,but I am talking last resort,and when did no one hit a modern tank with molotow cocktails,napalm or thermite.
And if thy did,would anyone show their weakness,doubt it.

long range shooter

Stovepipe wrote: »

Tanks can and do use alleys and back streets. Some of that Syrian footage shows them doing just that. The obvious risk is from close-quarter attack and the fact that long barrels can be snagged by street/urban furniture such as lighting poles, masts, walls, cables and wires and so on. Armoured cars, with shorter barrels and the ability to make a quick getaway have a better chance in confined spaces.
regards
Stovepipe

That's why the Russians had to change their tactics,sending in infantry first,cleaning out building by building,followed by their armoured vehicles,when entering
grozny chechnya

long range shooter

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi there,
lrs, you appear to labour under the illusion that an airvent in a modern tank allows direct access to the crew compartment. They don't. There are filtration systems, as well as indirect ducts, in the way, so that the crew are protected from such items as flammable bombs like Molotovs or infantry flamethrowers or smoke grenades. For anyone to have a hope of knocking out a tank with an improvised weapon, they'd have to stop the tank first, render it immobile so it can't reverse out of trouble, blind the crew's optics and neutralise any supporting infantry, before they can even consider breaking open the crew compartment. As you can understand, it takes a huge amount of coordinated effort and all the cards have to fall your way, ie, you have to achieve the above first without running out of men and resources. Apart from that, once you destroy the tank, you have to get away alive,too. Incidentally, what you don't see from the Syrian videos of fellas tank-busting is their failure/loss rate. Also, going back, the loss rate of Panzers against the Polish in urban areas was high because the Poles used artillery guns firing over open sights against thinly-armoured Pz 1/2/3s. Some Iraqis tried this in GW2 in Baghdad with 122mm and ZSU guns.

regards
Stovepipe

I totally agree with that,without infantry support or air support,any armoured vehicle would be a sitting duck to any attack.
But like he rebels I'd in Chechnya,they operated in groups,with RPGs,machine guns and snipers.
So it have to be a joint attack to take out modern tanks and armoured vehicles.
If you do I am sure even homemade weapons would be enough to destroy any enemy armour.
But I am nearly sure that a napalm bomb or thermite that is well placed in a joint attack would be enough to disable a tank.

BostonB

I'm not sure you can compare Russian tanks and tactics to US, UK or Israeli tanks and tactics. Never mind some 2nd or 3rd world country, using tanks unsupported in completely unsuitable environment.

Besides which you don't have to guess. Modern tanks have been used in recent conflicts in urban situations.

In one encounter within the urban area a Challenger 2 came under attack from irregular forces with machine guns and rocket propelled grenades. The driver's sight was damaged and while attempting to back away under the commander's directions, the other sights were damaged and the tank threw its tracks entering a ditch. It was hit directly by fourteen rocket propelled grenades from close range and a MILAN anti-tank missile.[11] The crew survived remaining safe within the tank until the tank was recovered for repairs, the worst damage being to the sighting system. It was back in operation six hours later after repairs. One Challenger 2 operating near Basra survived being hit by 70 RPGs in another incident.[12]
In August 2006 in al-Amarah, a Soviet RPG-29 penetrated the frontal hull of a Challenger 2 through ERA in the area of the driver's cabin. The driver lost part of his foot and two more of the crew were also injured but the driver was able to reverse 1.5 mi (2.4 km) to an aid post. The incident was not made public until May 2007, in response to accusations, the MoD said "We have never claimed that the Challenger 2 is impenetrable."[13][14]
There have been two Challenger 2s damaged in combat and one destroyed:
25 March 2003 – A friendly fire ("blue-on-blue") incident in Basra in which one Challenger 2 of the Black Watch Battlegroup (2nd Royal Tank Regiment) mistakenly engaged another Challenger 2 of the Queen's Royal Lancers after detecting what was believed to be an enemy flanking manoeuvre on thermal equipment. The attacking tank's second HESH round hit the open commander's hatch lid of the QRL tank sending hot fragments into the turret that caused an explosion of the stowed ammunition, destroying the tank and killing two crew members. It remains the only Challenger 2 to be completely destroyed on operations.[15]
6 April 2007 – in Basra, Iraq, an IED shaped charge penetrated the underside of the tank resulting in the driver losing three of his toes and causing minor injuries to another soldier.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

The RPG-29 has also been used to kill a T-72 in Syria. You can be sure thats the real thread not home made grenades. The other risk is the super big IED (aircraft bomb size) and those using shaped charges.

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

I'm not sure you can compare Russian tanks and tactics to US, UK or Israeli tanks and tactics. Never mind some 2nd or 3rd world country, using tanks unsupported in completely unsuitable environment.

Besides which you don't have to guess. Modern tanks have been used in recent conflicts in urban situations.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Challenger_2

The RPG-29 has also been used to kill a T-72 in Syria. You can be sure thats the real thread not home made grenades. The other risk is the super big IED (aircraft bomb size) and those using shaped charges.

When was the last time Napalm or thermite was used against A modern tank?
And I think both US,UK and Israelis have learned not to go in urban areas without infantry support,from previous conflicts.

BostonB

Its your theory can you find any examples? If its not that common that might suggests its not that useful a tactic, as you generally can't get close enough. Tanks usually keep their distance and don't operate on their own.

Because of their heat and volatility, thermite grenades are almost never used as an offensive or defensive weapon against people. The weapon is used almost exclusively for destroying enemy materials in a secure and controlled environment.

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/thermite.htm

long range shooter

BostonB wrote: »

Its your theory can you find any examples? If its not that common that might suggests its not that useful a tactic, as you generally can't get close enough. Tanks usually keep their distance and don't operate on their own.



http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/thermite.htm

No,I can't find any examples,but it's in most nations army manuals as a last resort against armoured vehicles.same with napalm and molotow cocktails.
But how often used in combat,I don't know.
I know the Russians in Chechnya had to change their tactics completely,because the rebels took out to many of their armoured vehicles and tanks.
And I know molotow a was also widely used,but can't find the actual effect of it.

As the Russians regrouped, they brought in more infantry and began a systematic advance through the city, house by house and block by block. Russian armored vehicle losses dropped off with their change in tactics. Russian infantry moved in front with armored combat vehicles in support or in reserve. Some Russian vehicles were outfitted with a cage of wire mesh mounted some 25-30 centimeters away from the hull armor to defeat the shaped charges of an antitank grenade launcher as well as to protect the vehicle from a Molotov cocktail or bundle of explosives. The Russians began establishing ambushes on approach routes into a selected area and then running vehicles into the area as bait to destroy Chechen hunter-killer teams.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/rusav.htm