Israeli armor

[1ComOpsCtr]

The good old RPG is more of an equalizer today than you appear to believe...

It should be noted that the RPGs fired in this latest conflict are responsible for most of the casualties by the Israeli forces...

Take a look at this collection of information from the Russians about M1 anti-tank defense capabilities, ...which are not as good as everyone in the public and the gaming community believes...

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/

Any tanks and APCs used in a simulations of this latest conflict will face a daunting task, if those who are duplicating the battle take the real challenges into account... Don't sell the RPG short... The IDF did, I believe, and they paid for it with the lives of their soldiers.

The AARs aren't out yet, but I think they will be very interesting to read when they do make it into the open.

I also believe you will find this conflict will not be considered the IDFs finest hour, when all is said and done. Political considerations and restraint played a more important role in this conflict than most.

Will
ComOpsCtr

[Mobius]

="1ComOpsCtr"]The good old RPG is more of an equalizer today than you appear to believe...

It should be noted that the RPGs fired in this latest conflict are responsible for most of the casualties by the Israeli forces...

Take a look at this collection of information from the Russians about M1 anti-tank defense capabilities, ...which are not as good as everyone in the public and the gaming community believes...

http://mdb.cast.ru/mdb/1-2005/ac/us_armor/

I hope the Russians continue to think this way. I for one don't want to correct them.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Mobius,

Your reply concerns me greatly...

Are you saying the data regarding the M-1 armor performance is incorrect?

Are you also implying the RPG is not effective against both US and IDF armor?

Have you read any of the AARs from the latest conflicts, say in the past 90 days, and have you looked at the "things learned" reports about RPGs lately?

Will
ComOpsCtr

[Mobius]

="1ComOpsCtr"]Mobius,
Are you saying the data regarding the M-1 armor performance is incorrect?
Are you also implying the RPG is not effective against both US and IDF armor?

The data sited is misleading.
As it is not all the data. The data only includes the effective hits. If it included the great number of ineffective hits then a true picture could be had.

A big deal is made of an RPG penetrated the glacis of an M-1. In fact this is the weakest point in the fron arc of the tank. At the horizontal it is a small target. But from above as it was fired this is a rather large target and may resist at only 30-45cm at that angle. It is backed by a fuel tank space. I read the RPG did set the fuel on fire, but the entire crew was unharmed even though the tank burned out.

Many IDF tanks where hit by anti-tank guided missiles. Of Russian, European and even US design.

I think we will have to wait to see what tactics each side was employing to get the effect we are reading about. One thing it does show is that tanks do not have seamless protection levels. Tanks have weaknesses everywhere. Like in WWII firing enough shots at something will find one.

[1ComOpsCtr]

Mobius,

I agree the total of RPG shots on target need to be taken into account. However, with the number of RPGs available to insurgents I think the number of shots isn't as important as the available number that can be shot. The stock pile of RPGs available is, in my view, staggering... just as the number of hand grenades was during previous conflicts. However the hand grenade was never as effective as the RPG when properly used by an opponent who knows how it will react in various situations, ...like bank shots, ...its limited though effective AA role in close in situations, a shrapnel pattern based on what's hit first, etc., etc... "They will eventually run out of them, ...but not for decades at this rate", to quote a friend who is in Iraq right now.

A defensive force well armed with stockpiles of RPGs has proven quite formidable against even the most modern armor and offensive weapons... Only the Slat Armor of the Stryker has proven effective in defeating them in close combat, something I know is being developed for other vehicles as we debate the issue. The added weight is an issue for another discussion... but if it works the weight is worth the strain on other systems.

And you are correct about the ATGMs, sorry I forgot them in the initial post...

Will
ComOpsCtr

[Mobius]

="1ComOpsCtr"]
A defensive force well armed with stockpiles of RPGs has proven quite formidable against even the most modern armor and offensive weapons..

Yeah when there are lots of them with operators able to flit about to the flanks and rear. I was thinking of ways of denying them this ability. It cannot be done with explosive shells or even MG fire as it must be persistent and last after the tank turns its attention in a different direction. I came up of bringing back the flamethrower tank. This could get the enemy out of spider holes and bunkers unlike anything else.

. Only the Slat Armor of the Stryker has proven effective in defeating them in close combat, something I know is being developed for other vehicles as we debate the issue. The added weight is an issue for another discussion... but if it works the weight is worth the strain on other systems.

The stat has some success to RPGs but not against ATGMs or HEAT shells.

[jb]

...it seems that nobody has learned the lesson since the days of Stalingrad. Fully enclosed vehicles are always at their most disadvantage in builtup areas ,and areas of limited visibility. A team effort is required to subjugate these areas. This would of course be in form of Infantry with armour.
The real problem that has been pointed out in the last 64 years with this is that you need to occupy the conquered space with the team. Even occuping key positions in small cities is rather a joke than a reality. It is shown that the only way that you CAN occupy a modern day city is by parking your a$$ in little defensive "forts" within. With this in mind you are really occuping nothing except the "basketball court" the troops setup.
I do believe this is why the Israelis agreed to the cease fire-for political or otherwise reasoning. HHhMMmm, maybe THEY are learning...

[1ComOpsCtr]

Gentlemen,

Our desire to "turtle up" has lead us to heavily armored scout vehicles, "jeeps like tanks", etc., etc... The public's desire for a no casualty conflict makes it difficult for the soldiers in the field to see it any other way. They want to survive, and if the press back home says they should have Hummers with 3" armor plate all around, why not?

The Hummer wasn't designed to take the punishment it gets from carrying all that extra weight. Their life span will be drastically reduced, but the public doesn't want any casualties, and the congress doesn't want any casualties... and the IDF is facing the same problem. Fight a war with no friendly casualties... an almost impossible task.

That is hard to simulate in a game, unless you go to a system we use that gives points for everything you expend to take an objective... each item used is assigned a point value, including the troopers. In the end you can see if the cost was worth the effort.

Will
ComOpsCtr

[1ComOpsCtr]

Here is an additional source that should be read regarding the most recent conflict...

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite? ... 4525911992

Yes, this is more political than wargame, but the background and conditions under which soldiers fight is just as important to a good wargame as how many rounds they have in their tanks...

Will
ComOpsCtr

[Mobius]

Some information is now coming out:

This is what happened in the war against Hezbollah. We knew the organization had advanced anti-tank rockets; the IDF's Military Intelligence even acquired one. We also understood that Hezbollah was positioning anti-tank units; however, we failed to understand the significance of the mass deployment of these weapons.

The result: Anti-tank weapons caused most of the IDF casualties in the war - nearly all the Armored Corps' casualties and many from the infantry units. More infantry soldiers were killed by anti-tank weapons than in hand-to-hand combat. Many of the infantry soldiers who lost their lives because of anti-tank weapons entered houses in the villages; the rockets penetrated the walls, killing them.

Hezbollah used seven different types of rockets in the war - four of them the most advanced available and all produced by Russia and sold to Syria. The most advanced rockets can penetrate steel armor of 70-centimeter to 1.2-meter thickness. After the armor has been pierced, a second warhead explodes inside the tank. MI acquired one of these rockets and understood that Hezbollah was positioning anti-tank units. However, the IDF was inadequately prepared for this development.

Four Israeli tanks hit large landmines. Three of the tanks, which lacked underbelly protective armor, lost all 12 crew members. The fourth had underbelly protective armor; of its six crew members, only one died.

Anti-tank missiles hit 46 tanks and 14 other armored vehicles. In all these attacks, the tanks sustained only 15 armor penetrations while the other armored vehicles sustained five, with 20 soldiers killed, 15 of them tank crew members. Another two Armored Corps soldiers, whose bodies were exposed, were killed. In another location, Wadi Salouki, Hezbollah carried out a successful anti-tank ambush, hitting 11 tanks. Missiles penetrated the armor of three tanks; in two of them, seven Armored Corps soldiers were killed. Two of the other tanks were immobilized.

The conclusions from this war have yet to be drawn, and we must remember that the enemy draws its own conclusions as well.

[jb]

Some information is now coming out:

...where is this info from ,Mobius?

[mmi80]

Good question JB, Mobius care to share your sources i'd like to know more.

[stevecolletti]

I think all of this needs to be kept in context.

Prior to Abrams/Bradley use in Iraq, armor fighting in cities or any built-up areas was considered to be dead-meat. Losses are inevitable, but U.S. armor was very successful in these conditions - certainly well beyond any historical precedent. This was not the case for the Russians in Grozny, where the insurgents had access to fewer and, for the most part, less capable versions of some some of these HEAT weapons (ATGM or RPG).

As for the future, it is possible that electric armor with do to HEAT weapons what spaced and composite armor did to HESH/HEP.

But that is why development never stops.

Steve

[Mobius]

="jb":
where is this info from ,Mobius?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751958.html

[jb]

="jb":
where is this info from ,Mobius?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/751958.html

Thanks Mobius...