This part of the thread reminded me of a cartoon I once saw:
<< > It's a non-issue. Tanks are fun and easy to kill. Mines, satchel
> charges, shoulder-fired rockets.
<shrug> depends if tanks are hover, or grav. >>
Ok now picture a grav tank in hover mode, underneath it is an ICE truck full
of soldiers pyramided on each others shouders, the guy on top reaching up on
his tip toes to try and place a satchel charge.... the tank is JUST out of
reach.....
I thought it was funny:)
> ShldWulf@aol.com wrote:
Do you remember where you saw it?
Some time ago, this was written:
> It's a non-issue. Tanks are fun and easy to kill. Mines, satchel
I'm not sure this is true; against modern (Chobham) tank armour as used by
NATO tanks, HEAT rounds of the types used in satchel charges and
man-portable weapons are pretty much useless - you need such a large
calibre it is impractical to carry. This is why tanks now depend so much on
AP(FS)DS rounds. Unless someone has figured out a way to put niftier warheads
in these rockets, a tank is still very hard for a grunt to kill. Mind you, if
infantry are still fielded against tanks (by proper armies) in the deep
future, they must be able to kill the somehow...
("Quick, corporal - pass the Futtock Rocket!").
> tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
However, this is only true against the front/turret armour of modern
tanks.
Sides, top, engine, treads (well, okay these are Grav tanks (8-) ), are
usually much more vulnerable. Somebody once suggested pouring flaming gasoline
into the turbine intake of a M1A2 as a way of stopping that beastie.
Infantry finds a way. Infantry always does. (8-)
J.
> You wrote:
> I'm not sure this is true; against modern (Chobham) tank armour as
First, the massive invulnerable protection is primarily restricted to the
glacis plate and the turret front. Second, satchel charges don't
use shaped charges--20 lbs of C-4 packed into a canvass bag WILL at
least M-kill a tank if it's thrown over the back deck. It'll blow out
the engine (conveniently located back there) and likely flip the turret
off and/or detonate the ammo in the turret rear. Third, you didn't
adress land mines, which will remain forever a nasty way of breaking
track (at the least--likely K-kill with DE mines like the M-21).
large calibre it is impractical to carry. This is why tanks now depend so much
on AP(FS)DS rounds. Unless someone has figured out a way to put niftier
warheads in these rockets, a tank is still very hard for a grunt to kill. Mind
you, if infantry are still fielded against tanks (by proper armies) in the
deep future, they must be able to kill the
somehow ... ("Quick, corporal - pass the Futtock Rocket!").
Remember, Dirtside II background postulates shoulder-fired rockets
issued to every man in the section that are more than capable of killing a
tank at 400 meters. I've seen a guy get ambushed by a hidden infantry platoon
and lose an entire platoon of grav tanks.
> Tom Anderson, Professional Amateur
> In a message dated 98-06-24 15:21:32 EDT, Jerry Han writes:
<< Somebody once suggested pouring flaming gasoline into the turbine intake of
a M1A2 as a way of stopping that beastie. >>
Urk. That would probably work. But, true to form, if the Infantry let you get
that close, they deserve to lose a neato toy like the Abrams. But all you
footsloggers wait until the A3 variant comes out - with that pretty new
'targeting' laser..target tanks through anything, targets infantry, targets
eyeballs...heh, heh, heh.
*ZAP*
> You wrote:
> Urk. That would probably work. But, true to form, if the Infantry
And you've seen armor officers use their attached infantry properly how often?
I once listened to an armor officer talk about attached infantry (I game early
modern with him and we got onto topic because I compared Renaissance
cavalrymen to modern tankers) soley in terms of how they
could add to the armor-killing capabilities of his task force. Uh-uh.
Not the way this game is played. Infantry escort tanks to keep other infantry
(and those Damned Engineers) from killing them.
> 'targeting' laser..target tanks through anything, targets infantry,
Whereupon helmets start having laser-resistant visors as standard. . .
> Who refrains from modeling laser blinding weapons in DS2 or SG2,
Presume everyone has eye protection, whether modelled with it or not.
By then, you'll have laser-proof contact lenses.
A not well known story. During the Gulf War a single Iraqi with an RPG stood
up and lofted an RPG round at an M1 Abrahms at over 500 meters. It hit just
right, into the turret ring and jamed the turret off it's ring enough to make
it inoperable. Learned this back in March when I was up at Fort Knox tank
simulation center (that's a place you've gotta see to believe). One of the
fellows that works there was company commander at the time.
Los
> tom.anderson@altavista.net wrote:
> I'm not sure this is true; against modern (Chobham) tank armour as
("Quick, corporal - pass the Futtock Rocket!").
> Tom Anderson, Professional Amateur
I have to agree with Jon on the point of infantry supporting tankers. It is
nice to imagine a lone grunt running up to a tank with a sachel charge and
taking out a tank but how often is this going to happen? If you're playing the
tanker's side how the heck did you get your tank sitting by its lonesome? In
combined arms infantry are there to take out other infantry (and maybe a few
engineers).
You have to remember that tanks have support (infantry, engineers and arty)
for a reason. Each arm supports the other arms. Tanks are good but I don't
know about american drills but in canadian drills if there is a chance that
infantry are to be encountered the commander orders his infantry to dismount
to check it out. My point is the infantry are there to take out opposing
infantry.
It is nice to picture Sgt York running up to a tank and taking it out. But
that tank has machine guns, it has smoke dischargers (white phosphorus), it
can move and it probably has other tanks around it than can support it. The
tank commander can even call down fire on his position.
I know I could take out a tank with a sachel charge but then again I'm
not the average infanteer ;-)
> -----Original Message-----
> John Skelly wrote:
> I have to agree with Jon on the point of infantry supporting tankers.
If
> you're playing the tanker's side how the heck did you get your tank
Lets remember that not every tank battle is fought on a billiard table.
Infantry taking on tanks is very much terrain dependent. Tanks can very easily
find themselves "stripped" of thier infantry support for a number of reasons.
Infantry train to kill tanks not as lone gunman but as part of
hunter-killer
teams (using LAWs AT4s, RPGs shaped charges, whatever) operating in
constrictive terrain in concert with their sides defensive plan. (as an aside,
The country I just got back from advising a few months ago pretty much snagged
many of their tanks (and spare parts) through exactly the technique described
above.)
I served a stint at JRTC as an OC as well as went through both NTC and JRTC a
number of times. Infantry kill tanks every rotation with regularity. Sometimes
with mucho success, sometimes they get their ass kicked. It's dependent upon
unit quality, experience. and situation. This is the same old arrogant
tanker's argument about their invulnerability to infnatry. Of cours ethey have
to be taught the lesson over and over the hard way.
As far as tanks avoiding this or that terrain or not going forward without
infantry support if it's not present or loss, well guess what? Tanks go where
ever they're told to go and infantry stay put where ever they're told to stay
put. unless you've been in some of these engagements you cannot possible
imagine the chaos and confusion which are so far removed to anything that
happens on most wargaming table.
So I say if any tanker wants to think himself (or herself, lets keep the
future in mind <g>) impervious to infantry in any situation, well then more
power to him! The term "well done" comes to mind...
> You wrote:
> charge and taking out a tank but how often is this going to happen?
Depends on how stupid the tankers are.
> You have to remember that tanks have support (infantry, engineers and
Maybe Canadian tankers are naturally timid, but a lot of American ones get
really overinflated opinions of themselves.
> It is nice to picture Sgt York running up to a tank and taking it out.
He's also got a lot of blind spots, and in closed terrain (mountains, forests,
cities) one can get real close before he'll even see you.
> You wrote:
> Infantry taking on tanks is very much terrain dependent. Tanks can
Easy one--call for mortar fire. Tanks button up, infantry either hide
or get dead. Or use a machine gun.
> teams (using LAWs AT4s, RPGs shaped charges, whatever) operating in
Mines are a glorious thing. Take out the lead vehicle with mines, the rear one
with rockets, and consume at leisure.
> power to him! The term "well done" comes to mind...
As does the term "well ventilated".
John spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> You have to remember that tanks have support (infantry, engineers and
I think this doctrine might have something to do with the expendable nature of
infantry vis a vis armour. Besides, a buttoned up tank can't observe as well
and can probably be killed by some dedicated foot sloggers who have the right
kit. So it makes sense to send the grunts out against other grunts.
I believe the description of the Infanteer job I was taught was "To Close With
And Destroy The Enemy".
Each arm of the service has a purpose. Without good use of combined
arms, a multi-arm force is just a disorganized cluster****. A well
oiled team lead by someone who understands combined arms deployments can be
far more effective than a greater number of poorly lead and organized forces.
Combined arms is a force multiplier. Too often, in games, many gamers miss the
opportunities to harness the combined arms effects and so don't really achieve
the results they could. (Of course, I could say the same of some formation
commanders I've
seen....).
> It is nice to picture Sgt York running up to a tank and taking it out.
Sure. And it's co-ax can only point in one direction, and if the tank
commander hatch-up firing his MG, he'd better be immune to sniper
fire. And with only 3 or 4 crew, your average tank can't be looking everywhere
at once. And I might say that if a small force of infantry can force a tank to
move, to pop smoke and hide, or to use arty calls for nothing much, then
they've more than paid for themselves. And this assumes they don't have ATGMs
or IAVRs.
I spent a lot of times with guys in armoured recce (in canada, that means
bombardier jeeps and binocs) and they all seemed to enjoy the tank killing
excercises they executed while dismounted. Now sure,
killing a tank is a risky proposition - but a lone tank with no
supporting infantry that is hunkered down somewhere is running a real risk.
Even poorly equipped infantry can be a threat if any of the tank crew are dumb
enough to stick a head out.
> I know I could take out a tank with a sachel charge but then again I'm
Heh. Sounds like John has just the spirit the army likes in
Infanteers - high morale, and a belief in their own capabilities. You
should be working recruiting John....:)
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 2036
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
The front is armoured to resist penetration by tank rounds. So are the sides;
to a lesser extent. So is the back to a even lesser extent. But are the engine
air intakes armoured? Is the underneath armoured? What about climbing on top
and opening the hatches? Or put a grenade down the barrel? You would have to
be as limber as a monkey to do this with M1 tanks, but it could be done.
What about the engine heat radiators? Stick things in things that move. Put
satchel charges on crew hatches. Block view ports with mud or own bodies.
> From the Chinese Philospher.
"That which does not kill us, makes us stronger."
> At 16:56 26/06/98 +1200, you wrote:
I heard that the Afghans used their own excrement to block the vision blocks
on Russian tanks and then waited for some turrent head to open a hatch so as
to clean it off. The Afghans shot him when his head poked up. Nice!