Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

The use of tanks in urban areas ?

  • 03-04-2013 10:54am
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭


    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: )


«1

Comments

  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 2,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭Morpheus




  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 564 ✭✭✭thecommietommy


    Morpheus 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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 20,297 ✭✭✭✭Jawgap


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,195 ✭✭✭goldie fish


    Have you heard of "world of tanks"?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22 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.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 16,141 Mod ✭✭✭✭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.

    mrktst4.JPG

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭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.



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




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




    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10 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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55



    (.)

    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)





    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭long range shooter


    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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,827 ✭✭✭Donny5


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭long range shooter


    "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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,324 ✭✭✭Cork boy 55


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭long range shooter


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,056 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


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


Advertisement