cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) (08/22/90)
From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) With all the troops flowing into Saudi Arabia, the big issue seems to be armor. With an announced figure of 30,000 troops currently in Saudi Arabia, there seems to be a critical shortage of heavy armor. What tanks are currently in the desert? The 82nd airborne seems to have brought M551 Sheridans, which are close to useless (can they fire shells out of the gun? I understood that the chassis didn't take the recoil very well). The Marines seem to have M60A1 (or are they M48s -- I only cost fleeting glimpses of them on the TV). I don't think the 101st has any tanks at all. The 24th Mech has yet to arrive, and is an "armor-light" division anyway (I think -- do they have the normal 5 battalions of tanks? Where are they now?) The III corps (2nd Armored and 1 Cav) won't arrive for two weeks (somebody's brother here is in the 2nd armor, and has been told he'll be leaving sometime between August 26th and September 4th, so I assume the equipment will arrive sometime in that span). All this is extremely unsettling. That leaves the U.S. forces very vulnerable to the estimated 5000 tanks in Iraq's arsenal. Granted, a large number of these appear to be T-54s, but the numbers are overwhelming. I am under the impression that Iraq could roll to Riyadh tomorrow if they chose too, inflicting immense losses on the American forces. What could stop them? Air power is only possible if you continue to control the airbases, which require ground forces, which I don't think we have. Besides, Iraq could probably knock out the bases for a day or two, which would be enough to reduce sorties during the first critical days. A chemical attack would also slow the sortie rate (ever try servicing an F15 in a chemical suit?), and there doesn't seem to be that much margin for reduction. Iraq also seems to have plenty of anti-aircraft weapons which would reduce the effectiveness of CAS and interdiction attempts (interdiction itself would not be as useful in the desert, there being so few "choke-points" to hit). TOW and other weapons (Dragons, LAWs -- not that you'd want to get that close to a tank to use one) are useful, but the best weapon to stop a tank is still another tank. Besides, what good is it to kill tanks at a 10:1 ratio when you're facing tanks at a 25:1 ratio. Iraq ain't Panama. The U.S. has not faced an enemy like this since Korea. Have we sent in too few forces to do the job, but too much to lose? The next three weeks will be critical. As an aside, III corps was one of the units earmarked for Europe (the 2nd Armored has a small brigade in Bremen), and, in fact, has equipment pre- positioned there (I think). The deployment of this unit to Saudi Arabia would have been undreamed of two years ago. One of the "benefits" of the end of the Cold War. Chris Perleberg cperlebe@encad.wichita.ncr.com
bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) (08/28/90)
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) In article <1990Aug22.025624.16870@cbnews.att.com> cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) writes: > > >From: cperlebe@encad.Wichita.NCR.COM (Chris Perleberg) [ Chris thinks the US doesn't yet have nearly enough armor in SA] >All this is extremely unsettling. That leaves the U.S. forces very >vulnerable to the estimated 5000 tanks in Iraq's arsenal. Our troops have TOW missiles. They have a range of 4,000 metres, and I think can travel that distance in 10-30 seconds. The best of Iraq's tanks can hit targets at 2,000 metres and they can only go 20mph when nobody is shooting at them. They are sitting ducks. Plus, we have helicopters that have extremely complex sensing equipment; for a good article see today's New York Times. A helicopter crew told how the tanks are sitting ducks in the desert, and they bragged that they could take out 200 tanks in an hour. Even if they are an order of magnitude too optimistic, I think that we are in really good shape. It is harder to use TOWs on offense, but obviously that is not true of helicopters. Of course, the above assumes that we have obtained air superiority... -- Dave Bakken Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu Dept. of Comp. Sci.; U.of Ariz. UUCP: uunet!arizona!bakken Tucson, AZ 85721; USA Bitnet: bakken%cs.arizona.edu@Arizrvax AT&T: +1 602 621 4976 FAX: +1 602 621 4246
cdr@brahms.AMD.COM (Carl Rigney) (08/28/90)
From: cdr@brahms.AMD.COM (Carl Rigney) I think you're underestimating the value of Air Superiority in desert warfare. As Rommel said in the 40s and Israel showed in 1967, its *very* hard to mass forces for a worthwhile armored attack when it just makes you a bigger target, and when your resupply has to creep along at night if at all. Rommel managed some clever tricks, but Iraq hardly has anyone of that caliber. Iraq has 5000 tanks but half are obsolete, and they can't afford to use *all* of them on one front, with Syria and Iran at their back (and even Turkey, if they're paranoid enough). All the same, I'm sure the U.S. forces will be much happier when they have some armor of their own. From what I've read, Non-mechanized Infantry is more of a liability than an asset in the desert. Rommel characterized desert warfare as tank warfare in its purest form - mobility is everything. -- Carl Rigney cdr@amd.com "It is not big armies that win battles; it is the good ones." -- Maurice de Saxe
scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) (08/30/90)
From: boulder!snoopy!scottmi@ncar.UCAR.EDU (SCOTT MICHAEL C) One of the things the US has going for it is that the Air Force's Maverick missile funtions quite well in featureless terrain (the Israelis used it quite successfully in the 1983 fighting against Syrian armor in Lebanon.) Apparently, the missile (at least some versions of it) has a tendency to lose lock-on if there is a lot of crap cluttering up the view of the target (like trees), but the Saudi desert conditions shouldn't create these kinds of difficulties. Additionally (according to a recent article in the Boulder Daily Camera,) there should be something like 3,000 M-1 Abrahms tanks in S.A. by the middle of September. Iraq has over 5,000 tanks, but it is certain that the majority of them, which are T-54s and various Chinese developments of them (including some Type-69s) are not capable of matching the M-1. The 50 or so Chieftains (captured from the Iranians) are the best Iraq has. --don't like snow, miss Deirdre, and wish I was still in Santa Cruz.
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (08/31/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1990Aug28.030655.21474@cbnews.att.com>, bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes: >Our troops have TOW missiles. They have a range of 4,000 metres, >and I think can travel that distance in 10-30 seconds. The >best of Iraq's tanks can hit targets at 2,000 metres and they >can only go 20mph when nobody is shooting at them. They are sitting >ducks. And the poor bastard who has fired the TOW has to keep his aim steady for the 10-30 seconds of flight time, while the arty is coming down (usually done in "softening up" before the tanks roll in), and probably being shot at by the tank gunner ("Smoke trail ahead," "Waste him before he wastes us!"). Since the TOW is mounted on a tripod, it's OK, when compared to the shoulder-launched dirt-attacking Dragon... Of course, nobody can explain why we have a wonderful launch-and-leave SAM (the Stinger), but we're still using wires and leaving men out to be fired on with the TOW & Dragon... Plus, we have helicopters that have extremely complex sensing >equipment; for a good article see today's New York Times. A helicopter >crew told how the tanks are sitting ducks in the desert, and they >bragged that they could take out 200 tanks in an hour. The desert plays hell on optical equipment. All that fine Saudi sand and heat. I have a drinkin' buddy in the reserves that claims the MBF for the Apache is 50+ odd minutes. Of course, he's prejudice, 'cuz he's a Cobra pilot.... [mod.note: MBF = Mean Time Between Failures. - Bill ]
FQV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU (jim bowers) (09/02/90)
From: jim bowers <FQV@PSUVM.PSU.EDU> In article <1990Aug31.030929.24575@cbnews.att.com>, sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) says: >And the poor bastard who has fired the TOW has to keep his aim steady >for the 10-30 seconds of flight time, while the arty is coming down (usually >done in "softening up" before the tanks roll in), and probably being shot >at by the tank gunner ("Smoke trail ahead," "Waste him before he wastes >us!"). Since the TOW is mounted on a tripod, it's OK, when compared to >the shoulder-launched dirt-attacking Dragon... > >Of course, nobody can explain why we have a wonderful launch-and-leave >SAM (the Stinger), but we're still using wires and leaving men out to be >fired on with the TOW & Dragon... In the TOW firings I have witnessed I don't particulary recall that the missle leaves behind all that much smoke. While a TOW does make a farily loud bang when it goes off it is highly doubtful that a Tank will hear this (sound travel time) and have time to respond. Since the TOW system is cammoflagued and considerably smaller than a tank it is difficult to detect where the missle came from at the ranges in which a 20 sec travel time is an issue. The greatest potential for being "knocked out" by artillery is not from taking out the tracker but by severing a wire (a much higher probability, cut the wire at any point and the missle is useless). An antitank missle guided by laser designator would enable the missle launch point and the tracker to be widely seperated and this would be a distinct advantage. So why don't they have a ground based version of the Hellfire?????? Jim
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/02/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >Of course, nobody can explain why we have a wonderful launch-and-leave >SAM (the Stinger), but we're still using wires and leaving men out to be >fired on with the TOW & Dragon... Actually, it's pretty easy to explain: an aircraft against a sky background is a lot easier for a dumb little missile to see and follow than a tank against complex ground clutter. The current claim is that millimeter-wave sensors and sophisticated software will fix this; if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you... The closest thing I know of to an infantry fire-and-forget antitank missile is an Israeli weapon -- name forgotten, somebody help? -- which is simply gyro-stabilized to fly a straight line. Of course, if the tank you're shooting at is an M-1 Abrams, *then* there is no big problem, since the gas-turbine engine makes it a conspicuous object in the infrared. I don't *think* anyone has yet made a specialized Abrams-killer missile... Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) (09/13/90)
From: nak%archie@att.att.com (Neil A Kirby) > From: att!utzoo!henry >>From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >>>Actually, it's pretty easy to explain: an aircraft against a sky background >>>is a lot easier for a dumb little missile to see and follow than a tank >>>against complex ground clutter. >> >>Maverick missiles pick things out of ground clutter quite nicely, using either >>IR (prefered) or TV. > > Sure they work nicely, for suitable values of "nicely". :-) Rumor hath > it that when you test them in realistic conditions, they don't work nearly > as well as the glossy brochures say. It's more than rumor, it was (and might still be) substantiated facts. When Mavericks were to be acceptance tested in IR mode, one of the testers went out and lit about a dozen $1.99 charcoal grills in the testing zone. This was unbeknownst to everybody else at the time, including the brass. The grills were to simulate battlefield fires from dead tanks and truck, and were also to simulate cheap protective measures. Results: Alot of "earthy" language from pilots and brass, and a number of trashed out two dollar grills. Very few tanks or trucks got hit. To get fire and forget anti tank, the missile should probably be multi-source imaging (such as IR, visible, and millimeter wave radar) but as far as I know we aren't there yet. > The question is not whether it will show up, but whether it will stand out > from clutter. All-aspect SAMs and AAMs are specced to work against a sky > background with a clear view of the nice big exhaust plume from a jet. > (Seeing the plume rather than the hot metal is what makes them all-aspect.) > Spotting the IR-suppressed plume from a tank diesel isn't so simple, > especially when it's at the back and you're at the front. This is also a possible saving grace for A10, Cobra, and Apache pilots: If you are down there near all of the burning metal, it's harder for an overhead enemy fighter to get a clean frontal shot using IR missiles. The question is "how much harder?" Neil Kirby ...att!archie!nak
d9bertil@hacke14.dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) (09/14/90)
From: d9bertil@hacke14.dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) In article <1990Sep12.014955.29266@cbnews.att.com> writes: >Everybody's doing top attack these days, actually, since it looks like a >much more practical way to kill tanks. The Norwegians already have an >operational top-attack missile. They didn't bother with f-and-f, though; >I think their missile ("Bill" I believe it's called) is a beamrider. A little nitpick might be that the RBS56 BILL is a Swedish missile. (I can't understand why everyone on sci.mil gives all credit to the Norvegians, first the costal defence Hellfire and now the BILL :-) > Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology > henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry -bertil- -- Bertil K K Jonell @ Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg NET: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se VOICE: +46 31 723971 / +46 300 61004 "Don't worry,I've got Pilot-7" SNAILMAIL: Box 154,S-43900 Onsala,SWEDEN (Famous last words)
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (09/14/90)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >>Maverick missiles pick things out of ground clutter quite nicely, using either >>IR (prefered) or TV. > >Sure they work nicely, for suitable values of "nicely". :-) Rumor hath >it that when you test them in realistic conditions, they don't work nearly >as well as the glossy brochures say. IR is the preferred mode of guidance for the Maverick these days because it does better against ground clutter and it is easier to pick out targets (being that a running diesel tank produces more heat than trees, bushes, and inflatable decoys. Since the AF is still buying them, it must be somewhat better than an iron bomb, eh? It might not be 90%, but anything better than 50% kill ratio is MUCH better than overflying the target and it's SAM systems. During the night, unless you leave the engine off, a diesel will stick out like a sore thumb, between the engine and the heat it releases from all that metal soaking in the sun. Daytime hours for IR are a bit more tricky. >>Horse hockey! The Army has had an Advanced Medium Range Anti-Tank missile >>in R&D for 10 (ten) years ... > >Horse hockey, is that like elephant polo? :-) Lots of things go into R&D >and never emerge, because they simply don't work well enough to field. Some weapons get killed due to budgetary and politicial considerations as well. FOG-M is another example of a weapon which doesn't have a political caucus, but a couple of definite uses. Gimme a break here, Henry. As I noted, the current squabble is not around if it will/won't work (it will, adequately), but how fast to fund it, because the Dragon anti-tank missile is a DOG. >much more practical way to kill tanks. The Norwegians already have an >operational top-attack missile. They didn't bother with f-and-f, though; >I think their missile ("Bill" I believe it's called) is a beamrider. Bill rides a laser beam. Reflected beams can be picked up by sensors for warning purposes (ie: "Pop smoke when being illuminated).
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (09/14/90)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) In article <1990Sep6.154922.26471@cbnews.att.com>, hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Hanhwe N. Kim) writes: > > > From: Hanhwe N. Kim <hnkst2@unix.cis.pitt.edu> > > The people on this thread who seem to trust the missile armed > infantryman against tanks should realize the psychological > effects of armor upon the guy in the hole. 50 tons of steel > with a BIG gun, supported by artillery, and flanking infantry > is damn scary. Not necessarily. Ask a tanker what he fears most. He'll probably answer with, "First, missile firing helicoptors, second, dismounted infantry." Which is why armor advances with supporting infantry - to protect the tanks from dismounted infantry. While with the 1st Brigade (Mech), 1st Infantry Division - we established "Anti-Tank Hunter Killer Teams", trained in anti-tank tactics, tought not to fear tanks, and equipped with Dragons, LAWs, and how to create tank-traps, and use 'field expedient' anti-tank devices. Properly trained and equipped, will reduce the 'shock' effect of tanks. A more recent historical event with missile-armed infantry vs tanks: An Loc, Vietnam. LAWS vs T-55s. (I'll do some more research - standby.) mts
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/20/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) >....Since the AF is still buying them, it >must be somewhat better than an iron bomb, eh? Since there is at least one verified case of the AF continuing to buy hardware that was known not to work at all, apparently in the belief that the manufacturers would somehow fix it since the contract said it had to work, I don't think this follows... :-) I suspect a Maverick *is* better than an iron bomb; however, it also costs a wee bit more, both in dollars and in sortie time (since the planes can carry more iron bombs than Mavericks, in general, and the iron bombs are more reliable and need less attention). Numbers are crucial; the issue is not whether it works at all, but whether it works well enough to make up for the added costs. Do the Israelis use Maverick? Now *that* is a good, and relevant, test. >During the night, unless you leave the engine off, a diesel will stick >out like a sore thumb, between the engine and the heat it releases from >all that metal soaking in the sun... Assuming you've got clear weather, of course. Valid enough in Kuwait, barring the occasional dust storm, I'd guess. >... As I noted, the current squabble is not around if it >will/won't work (it will, adequately), but how fast to fund it, because the >Dragon anti-tank missile is a DOG. Replacing it with another dog won't help. There is a whole lot to be said for buying something that is known to work rather than chasing the Holy Grail of fire-and-forget, at least when we are talking about an urgent near-term replacement for a real turkey. If the objective is to get something that *works*, *now*, it is necessary to deliberately accept that you will be buying second-rate hardware... because the first-rate stuff is never properly debugged yet. >Bill rides a laser beam. Reflected beams can be picked up by sensors for warning >purposes (ie: "Pop smoke when being illuminated). Considering the number of laser beams that are likely to be flying around, I suspect such automatic systems will get disabled quickly. Yes, beam riding has its disadvantages, but it wins on simplicity and accuracy. -- TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Stephen C. Woods) (09/24/90)
From: "Stephen C. Woods" <scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU> In article <1990Sep14.042909.2079@cbnews.att.com> bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) writes: > > > A more recent historical event with missile-armed infantry vs tanks: > An Loc, Vietnam. LAWS vs T-55s. (I'll do some more research - standby.) Well perhaps I can shed a small amount of light on this subject, first some background. In 1968 (From Jan through Nov) I spent 47 weeks learning, at great expense to the DoD, how to speak and understand The Hanoi dialect of the Vietnamese language. At the time I was a Sgt. in the USMC. One of my classmates (a washed-out aviator) invited me to go Sky Diving, being young and foolish , I accepted his invitation and we trotted off to Ft. Meyer VA. (Just across the River from Washington DC.) At Ft. Meyer in an OLD (WWII temporary building built in 1942 to last 5 years) barracks was the Ft. Meyer Sport Parachute Club, a Non-funded operation. About 2/3 of the members were Green Berets (most of them taking various (useful?) languages to prepare for various contigency plans [Aafrikans, Etheopian, Swahilli, Xohsa, Zulu, Vietnamese, 4 dialects of Chinese, Russian etc). Two of these Green Berets had been members of the A team at An Loc, RVN. The fight for An-Loc was a minor (Sorry guys, I realise that if you're on the giving/recieving end of a firefight it's not minor, but in context) portion of the Ke-Sanh (I've probably misspelled this) AKA The Americian Den-Bien-Phu (which it wasn't at all, but I digress) campagin. The Special Forces camp at An-Loc (containing a Special forces A team, and 1 reinforced Bn of the ARVN) was overrun at night by a (small) Division or a (large) Brigade of mixed armour and infantry. The armour consisted of a small number (an estimated Platoon) 3-5 of T-55 MBT and (a Company?) 10-12 PT-76 Light tanks. The APRVN (NVA) infantry forces consisted of at least 1 Main Force Regt, I used to know the actual unit(s) involved, but I have long since forgotten. The effectivness of the various anti-armour weapons were described to me as follows: Against the PT-76 the LAAW (M-72) was effective, they got 7 PT-76's with 9 (or 10) hits. Against the T-55 the LAAW was a joke. They got 0 T-55's for 10-15 hits, it seemed that every time they hit them, the hatches would fly open, the tank would stop for about 20 seconds, then arms would reach out and pull the hatches shut and the tank would continue. The only other AT weapon that was available was the 105MM Recoilless Rifle. This was VERY (read awsomely) effective against the PT-76, the got at least 3 with 3 shots, each shot totally destroyed the tank (all shots were with HEPT rounds), against the T-55 they were also effective (2 for 3 shots, my informant claimed that it should have been 3/3 but the bunker collapsed as they fired the last round). Unfortunatly for the defenders they only had 2 105's (as I recall, 1 was knocked out by a direct mortor hit on the tube, the other by the colaps of the bunker) and the remaining tank(s) got into the compound, leaving no real choice but to ( his words) 'execute the plan B, di di mau!' (trans: go (imperative form) fast, or to quote the Messures Monty Python, 'Run away, run away!'). MBT Main Battle tank. T-55 A Soviet (Warsaw pact) MBT, aproximates the later versions of the US M48 tank, but with better armor. PT-76 An amphibious (swimming) tank and as such is very lightly armored, I have heard from people who should know that the PT-76 can, under favorable conditions, be suscessfully engaged with .50 Cal HMG (as long as you have AP/APT or APTI rounds). LAAW Light Anti-tank/Anti-personel Weapon, a disposable Bazooka short range (300 Meters), 1 shot and discard. 105MM RR A Recoiless rifle, almost a shoulder fired cannon (it's hand carriable but needs a tripod to fire), very effective, has a huge backblast that can knock down tents for 50-100 feet behind. HEPT (AKA HESH) High Explosive, Plastic Tracer, the primary tank killer round for the 105. uses a soft deforming head that squishes against the armor of the victim then explodes, the shock wave traveling through the armor causes the inner surface to flake off (spall), the diameter of the flake is ~~ the thickness of the armor, the depth is ~~1/2 the thickness, this flake is actually a cloud of very small bits of metal moving very repidly. HMG Heavy Machine Gun AP Armor Piercing APT Armor Piercing, Tracer (back glows brightly, makes it easy to see where it goes. APTI Armor Piercing, Tracer , incindiary. As above but it starts fires too. -- ----- Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614 UUCP: ...!{ibmsupt,hao!cepu}!ollie}!scw Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU