Tanks - whats the big deal?

Factual Questions
21

IANAS but my guess is this is true in the desert warfare witnessed during Desert Storm. Indeed, infantry would probably hinder the tankers who, in the wide open spaces of the desert, can use their speed and mobility to great effect. Infantry would just slow them down (IIRC some tank platoons had to be told to slow it down a bit as they were getting too far ahead of the attack in the larger scope of things).

That said I would think infantry support would be desirable in an urban or forested environment. I agree that one guy with nothing more than his rifle is probably zero threat to a tank I imagine the enemy would start cooking up all sorts of nastiness for any tanks they can get close to. No reason to make it easy on them. (Can the crew in a tank be ‘cooked’ if the enemy starts dousing the tank in [say] gasoline and lights it on fire? I imagine the tank would survive just fine but living in an oven can’t be good for the tankers.)

It is true that tanks have poor visibility up close (i.e. next to the tank) but beyond that they have very good visibility. An Abrams tank has 360[sup]o[/sup] of vision (and the turret does not need to be rotated for that). In addition, with their advanced imagers, they can see through smoke and dust clouds and the like as well as night vision. In some conditions the tank might actually spot you before you spot it…bad news for you.

Once you’re spotted the tank has a 12.7 mm Browning M2 machine gun, a 7.62 mm M240 machine gun and a second 7.62 mm M240 machine gun mounted coaxially next to the main gun barrel to take care of you (not to mention the main gun itself).

22

In the absence of supporting infantry, Tankers do what’s called a “back scratching”, hosing the boarding infantry off each other with machineguns, or, if so equiped, cannister (sometimes called “beehive”). I don’t think there’s canister rounds available for the 105mm and 120mm guns, but in Vietnam, the M-48 tanks had it available, and it did devestating work against boarders. Something around a thousand pencil-eraser shaped bits of metal going downrange like an enourmous shotgun. Ouch.

In mechanized divisions, especially calvary units, the infantry closely follows the armor in APCs and IFVs, allowing them to more-or-less keep up with the armor while being protected from fragmentation and stray bullets. Once the armor encounters significant infantry opposition, their supporting infantry un-asses their transport, the air units are called in, artillery fire missions are requested, and you get a combined-arms assault, which is damned scary when done right, and close to impossible to stop unless you’ve got armor, artillery, and aircraft of your own.

In an enviroment like that, go ahead and try boarding a tank. I’ll notify your next-of-kin.

23

Re the OP, I think everything has already been said.

The LAW is near useless against a tank; at best, it will knock a track off. The Dragon and Milan anti-tank missiles are man-portable, and are said to be somewhat more effective.

Your friend was BSing you. All American armored divisions have infantry battalions.

24

Take this FWIW but to get an idea of how ‘easy’ it is for an individual (even a lot of individuals) to take out a tank just look to Israel today and their problems with the Palestinians.

I’ve seen many photos (such as this one) of an Israeli tank parked in some hotspot in the West Bank or Gaza Strip. I’m just guessing but I’d bet there are plenty of Palestinians who’d love to take one of those out but I have never heard of that happening. Absent specialized weapons (LAW rockets, AT-Mines, etc.) or specialized tactics (tanks traps…i.e. a big hole in the ground) I believe a tank is near invulnerable to infantry.

25

This could be the case, I know he was a tanker during the Gulf War.

26

Didja update your Wills and Insurance during the POM?

Seriously:

Environment is key. In open terrain like a desert, foot infantry just can’t keep up with a mechanized force; almost all of our infantry support was Mechanized (in M-2 and M-3 Bradleys) or Airmobile (Air Cav and such), and there biggest duty was gathering up EPW after the battles or clearing hold-outs out of bunkers.

The “cavalier” attitude of pilots (fixed and rotary winged) is one of the reasons they aren’t to well regarded by any ground force. This is what ground troops generally believe goes on in aircraft during a battle:

Pilot 1: “I say, Pilot 2 old boy, is yon tank one of ours, or one of theirs?”
Pilot 2: “Well, old bean, I can’t quite say for certain. Did you check the map? Are our lads about this area?”
Pilot 1: Well, old hat, my eyes can’t quite focus. That party last night at the O-Club was a bit of a romp."
Pilot 2: “I’ll say, old chum. Well, since it’s close to Happy Hour at the O-Club, just fire off the last of your ordnance and be done with it.”
Pilot 1: Roger that, old spice. Tally Ho and all that. Last one back buys the first round!"

In more enclosed terrain (especially urban environments) it becomes a bit more problematic. The tank’s armor isn’t uniformally thick all about, with the thinnest being the rear and the top. So, conceivably, leg infantry (as opposed to mechanized or airborne) could hide, let a tank go by, and pop out with a man portable anti tank weapon for a clean shot at the rear.

As has been already noted, tanks rarely work alone; two- and four-tank elements (sections and platoons) are quite common. In Desert Shield/Storm, our smallest operational unit was a battalion. That’s a lot of firepower, working in close conjunction. Movement in hostile terrain was most often “Bounding Overwatch”, a maneuver where one unit sets up for covering fire, and another moves forward a bit. They then trade functions. In this manner, someone is always watching out for the other. Very similar to advancing infantry, but for longer distances.

Modern tanks (like the LeClerc, the Leopard, the Challenger, the Abrams and the T-80) have gyroscopically stabilized turrets, which allow for firing “on the move” with little if any degradation in accuracy. As well, sophisticated fire control systems (with laser range finders, IR and Thermal optics and Fire Control Computers) allow for amazing accuracy (gunners are, more often than not, the limiting factor) in all kinds of inclement weather and conditions.

Taken all together (sophisticated weaponry, trained crews, co-ordinated tactics), modern Armor is pretty fierce. But by no means is it undefeatable.

Lone infantrymen “climbing aboard with satchel charges” is pretty low down on the threat register, though.

robby, Danimal:

It’s possible at the battalion and brigade level to have “pure” units (armor, infantry), but at the division level there will some combination. Armor divisions will probably have a brigade of infantry; Infantry divisions will probably have a brigade of armor.

During war, the units may get “chopped” and assembled as task force(s) to support one another, depending upon the mission. The same way fighter jets from one squadron may get tasked to support and escort bombers from another squadron.

27

Quote by tomndebb

The OP was talking about WWII tanks and most were almost sieves for all the openings in them. Most combat tanks did not have a periscope system to look out, they had large slits with armored hatches to close with smaller slits in them. If you could get on top of a WWII tank you would have a wide choice of openings to shoot into. Never mind trying to blow up the main gun, go for the “soft” targets inside. The problem with this is that the tank crews have side arms themselves and will be shooting out the slits and gun slots.

Also, the machine gun along side the main weapon is mainly a ranging gun for the main gun and is aimed by aiming the main cannon. Commander’s cupolas often had a machine gun turret on them for point defense and anti-aircraft use.

28

You’re welcome.

HA! I KILL ME!

:smiley:

29

[hijack]

ExTank, a question about U.S. tank tactics -

As an infantryman I had little to do with tanks, but I was always told that one difference btween Israeli and Arab fighting styles is that while the Arab tank commanders fought with their hatch buttoned shut, the IDF always rode into combat with their head and shoulders exposed (except when under artilery and NBC bombardment). While this method was more dangerous, it also drastically improved situational awareness and reaction speed, giving the tank commanders a crucial edge.

Now, I had always assumed that we shared this tactic with the U.S. Military. However, some posters have mentioned fighting with the hatches closed. So which is it?

30

I was under the impression that the current commander’s cupola had the ability to lock in an overhead position, horizontal, but above the hatch rim enough for a clear 360 degree view. It combines an unobstructed, non-periscope view with protection from air-bursts.

31

That’s the “open protected” position, Monkey.

In general, tankers do whatever is most appropriate, depending on the terrain, the situation and the hardware involved. Generally, being fully unbuttoned (exposed) including the driver and the loader, provides the greatest visibility at, of course, the greatest risk. On the opposite end of the spectrum is the fully buttoned position, where everyone is snugly away inside the tank, providing the greatest protection at the least visibility.

In, say, desert combat, everything’s so exposed and wide open that the tank’s primary sensor is not the crew’s eyeballs, but the thermal imaging equipment available to the gunner, so having the rest of the crew buttoned up isn’t really a big deal, and certainly isn’t going to determine the outcome of a battle (much less a war) Also, in some of the more modern tanks, the tank commander (TC) also has an independent periscope of his own, sometimes with an independent thermal viewer as well, which can also help visibility while buttoned.

So generally, it depends.

Not really, but that’s a discussion in and of itself. The absolute best way to kill tanks is with other tanks. They do it faster, cheaper and with more ammo (which means more dead tanks) Aircraft have their own benefits that make them very useful and dangerous, but sheer lethality is not one of them. I personally consider the A-10s reputation to be far greater than it actually deserves, but that’s also another discussion in itself :wink:

Well, the M72 LAW is outdated, yes, but bazooka-style weapons are by no means useless. The modern ones like the M136 AT-4 or the Russian RPG-27 (currently the best available) are quite capable of defeating a tank. They’re limited, in that they generally can’t do it frontally and they have a comparatively puny maximum effective range (100-200 meters) but they’re cheap and easily portable. The average soldier can carry one with his usual load and not be much worse off for it. In fact, one often IS part of the usual combat load, if they have any chance of facing AFVs. These things are singlehanedly the reason why tanks and urban areas don’t mix. Their relatively low cost makes them the primary vehicle-killing weapon for rebels, terrorists and podunk armies around the world.

The larger guided missile systems are better, in that they’re (obviously) guided, have a longer range and are generally more lethal (except for Dragon – what a piece of crap) than their smaller shoulder-rocket cousins, but they’re also heavier, more expensive, and generally require more specialized training, making them a dedicated squad weapon rather than a standard issue weapon. ATGMs are really getting quite good these days, too, as the cutting edge systems are top-attack, fire and forget missiles. Terribly nasty stuff, really, but only kit for the most modern of armies.

32

After reading the greater portion of this thread I suspect it would be easy enough to “open up” any tank with the following:

one agile/brave soldier armed with a can of spray paint (pick your color but I like black best).

Any takers?

33

I don’t get it.

34

(Oops, I forgot to include a piece of tin foil to cover any GPS antenna I could find.)

The premise of my comment centers on these points:
-tanks rely heavily on periscope obtained info.
-tanks rely modern electronic navigation systems (GPS)
-if robbed of both the above inputs in any arena (except for an absolutely flat desert), someone (Tank Commander or Driver) MUST stick his head out of the hatch to determine position and control movement. Hello weak point!

I suspect this situation would equate to a blind rhino; nasty, but blind.

35

Alessan: which is it? Depends. Mostly it’s the tank commanders choice, but it is also occasionally dictated by doctrine or by command directive.

The difference between real world and training:

In training maneuvers and such, about the only time we went “open protected” (accurately described by Monkey and correctly identified by Mekhazzio) was in gunnery, and only then because the gunnery scenario called for it as a command directed safety measure.

About the only time we completely buttoned up was during simulated NBC attacks (typically with CS grenades), which is doctrine, or again in gunnery (also usually simulated NBC attacks).

In the Real World: in the Gulf War, we rode open hatch until chunks of metal began flying about really fast, then dropped to “open protected”.

We only fully buttoned up once, during an artillery barrage, but only as a precaution against any chemical rounds in the mix of shells falling around us, not for the added protection against shrapnel (though that technically was a danger).

The M1A2 has six periscopes or “vision blocks” arranged hexagonally about the commander’s cupola. While providing decent unassisted (no magnification) 360* vision, they have limited fields of view individually. There was talk for a while of going to a one-piece 360* vision block, but I suppose it was dropped for whatever reason, as I’ve heard nothing else about it since leaving the service.

The M1A2 also has a CITV (Commander’s Independent Thermal Viewer), which gives the commander access to the same quality of vision aids as the gunner (magnification, thermal), but independent of the gunner’s control. This allows the commander to scan for and aquire targets independent of the gunner, allowing faster shifting between targets.

You can see the CITV here. It’s on top of the turret, front left side (front right as you look at the picture). A better picture can be found here.

Ain’t she purty? The CITV can be seen in the location described above; it’s the “stovepipe” looking device.

I saw this and had an orgasm. Had to go change my underwear. Note the dust about the tracks. This may be either a stationary or moving engagement, as the high-speed photography necessary to capture the muzzle blast would also catch the track fairly well too. Note the lean on the antennas? That’s not necessarily indicative of vehicle motion during firing. My best guess is a stationary shot. Just a gut feeling.

Here’s a better picture; note that some of the muzzle blast is occluded by the berm (low dirt mound) in front of the tank.
Also note the lack of CITV, making this an M1A1. Note the full-open commander’s hatch. This is probably taken during a calibration firing, as “money shots” (as qualification engagements are sometimes called) are almost universally in the “open protected”.

’Uigi: are you volunteering? Your can of spray paint against a tank? I’d pay money to see it. It’d be more fun to watch than a lion eating a christian.

36

Well, I’ve been in a half-dozen Shermans (probably -A3 or later variants) and one Stuart. The Stuart was pretty much as you described, but the all Shermans could button down quite tightly. All the slits were filled with greenish plexiglas to a depth of two or more inches. The German Mark IV and the British Matilda may have been more open, but I’d be really surprised to discover that the Panther was more sieve-like than the Sherman.

37

German tanks had generally better access than Allied tanks, but still had d*mn few places where you could profitably stick a grenade. German tanks also had lots of pistol ports (Small openings in the armor suitable for the muzzle of a pistol or submachine gun), and usually carried a submachine gun (MP-38 or MP-40) as a standard crew small arm. That means, in practice, that the boarder would just get hosed off the tank by large volumes of 9mm fire. Later German heavy tanks frequently came with very good armor coverage for the various openings and a self-defense anti-personnel mortar, which fired short-range fragmentation bombs in any direction you chose without exposing the crew in any way.

38

{b]ExTank** - Thanks. The IDF is kind of fanatic about keeping the commander’s head out of the turret, even though it was the main reason that the atrittion rate of tank officers in the '73 war was about four times that of enlisted men. But they won, so who am I to argue?

However -

O-kaaay… I don’t really see it myself, but I’ll take your word for it. I can’t really criticize you - I’ve had similar reactions to new web gear (and the Negev, mmmmmm!).

I have to admit, the Abrams sure is a sexy looking machine. Not as sexy as thisone, of course, but still a highly attractive lump of metal.

39

The Merkava is sexy in a vicious reptilian manner, but what’s the deal with that shell-trap reverse sloping on the turret? It just looks like trouble waiting to happen.

Americans are suckers for fast metal, and cross-country, an Abrams is about as fast as one gets in a MBT. A real E-ticket ride.

40

American mechanized divisions (Armor and Mechanized Infantry) both have organic infantry and armor units. A Mechanized Infantry Division is composed of three brigades, each brigade having two infantry battalions and one armor battalion. Armored Divisions are composed of three brigades as well, the mix being two armor battalions and one of infantry. Generally, units are cross-attached into task forces (battalion-sized elements) and teams (company-sized), but only in a major exercise or combat deployment.

Additionally, each type of division has pretty much identical support elements, including such assets as artillery, aviation, maintainence, supply, MP, MI, engineers, etc. The only difference is the 1:2 mix of armor and infantry battalions.