Ask a Soldier

[Ajidica]

How difficult would it be for lightly armed infantry to handle a tank (or another similarly armored vehicle) without access to anti-tank weaponry?

I was reading about the Great Lakes Crisis, and was struck by how the lightly armed soldiers (be they Zairan or Rwandan) just melted away when faced with armored vehicles (such as when Angola decided to intervene with tanks to prop up the government).

 

[Mouthwash]

Do you get to read books/have personal free time in the military? (Sorry if this has been asked before I simply can't stand to have to go through every bit of this to find out- I'm thinking of joining the army myself).

 

[AnthonyBoscia]

.....

 

[r16]

typical home-prepared r16 rant with typical pointlessness

the sanitized modern warfare has possibly made it quite normal to assume that the new capabilities in warfare can be kept available forever . Even by those in the trade itself . That enemy weakness can always be spotted and actions planned accordingly , that attacks will be made only where appropriate and will not be made at all if the situation does not warrant success by 100% . That Iran and Iraq fought in the trenches for 8 years is in a century long gone . Apart from any racial profiling that might come to mind , the bewildering advances in Electronics , justifiably achieved by those who invest in them , will make it impossible for such stagnations to happen . Almost makes it certain that somebody has already come with the 21st Century reality : "We have Command&Control and the savages don't."

it is perhaps really irrelevant to bring up the past and attacks will always be mounted where they will succeed . And the better trained attackers will carry the day . Or maybe the enemy will have a peer competitor providing covert or even "@##!%**@ Imperialists! Take this!" assistance and American Tactical Air will be raining down , with own attack jets taking AAMs or God Forbid even gunfire ; own artillery will be receiving counter battery fire ; own UAVs will be shot down by Enemy integrated AD , own supply depots will be over run by enemy commandos ; own armour will get top-attack munitions expended on them like there is no tomorrow ; own tactical networks will be jammed like nobody has ever been jammed yet . In such a condition where dispatch riders rule supreme will the better trained Western or Eastern or any other geographic direction's Infantry be able to take Hill 450 defended by a mob with broomsticks to carry on the offensive to Hill 400 and beyond ? Or is it possible that the mob will be armed at least with vintage AKs and they will produce an hail of lead that will still take down people ?

is there any reason to assume the enemy of the West or East be the equivalent of Saddam's Iraq ? Always ? Long in words , short in action , to be swamped by Quantitative Superiority , let alone Quality ? Or in some totally incredible long shot that matches the Argentinians' going to war with the justification that winter was coming and the counter-measures they just bought from Israel had AIM-9's number and why should Sidewinder Lima be any different from the rest ? Would Her Majesty's Goverment risk a landing if Harriers were dogs instead of predatory birds ? Would certainly better trained and even better motivated British Infantry be still able to carry the day ? Would it be possible for Argentinian conscripts to resist , even counter-attack if they had A-4s bombing British positions ? My certainly limited books say before Wireless Ridge there was an overflight or maybe even attack that delayed the preparations . For 15 minutes ? For 15 seconds ?

 

[Borachio]

Do you get to read books/have personal free time in the military? (Sorry if this has been asked before I simply can't stand to have to go through every bit of this to find out- I'm thinking of joining the army myself).

Isn't this like asking whether soldiers are still allowed to eat ice cream?

Some people in the military have even been known to write books.

 

[Flying Pig]

I read some works by Trevor N. Dupuy and he debunks the myth that attacker always suffers higher losses than defender.

As a rule of thumb, all other things being equal, if you can't send three times the firepower at a dug-in enemy that he's going to be sending back at you, you're too small to make an attack. This means that a British section encountering an enemy section should, in theory, simply fix them where they are while another section makes the actual assault - the third section in the platoon acts as a reserve, both of ammunition and of manpower if needed. Of course, such things as training, terrain (although this is usually on the other side) and IDF capability act as force multipliers.

How difficult would it be for lightly armed infantry to handle a tank (or another similarly armored vehicle) without access to anti-tank weaponry?

Honest answer is that it depends how armoured we're talking about, and what sort of light infantry we're dealing with. Some light vehicles can be shot through with a lot of small-arms fire, but for most of them you would need air support or an obligingly nearby tank. The American airborne during the Second World War famously improvised AT weapons with bottles of fuel, which would probably work on most tanks (they create a sizeable explosion when exposed to the heat of the engine), but would struggle with heavy armour. That said, on an old tank I imagine the heat itself would do the job. Modern ones are armoured in such a way that this doesn't work.

Again, I'm not sure if this works in a modern tank, but I have heard of partisans during the war using a ditch to immobilise a vehicle, then putting a standard grenade into the gun barrel to disable it. I know this works with anti-aircraft guns even today.

Almost makes it certain that somebody has already come with the 21st Century reality : "We have Command&Control and the savages don't."

That's what we thought at Arnhem. There's an only-just-a-joke in the military that anything which can go wrong, will go wrong, as will anything which cannot go wrong. I've been in situations whereby things have gone horribly wrong and company commanders found themselves unable to confer with battalion command - in one notable instance, because battalion command had been shot. I've heard plenty of stories of sections and platoons being cut off and having to work totally independently. Again, if a commander needs to be replaced, his replacement has to quickly impose his will upon the battlefield, otherwise there are a few very hairy minutes of anarchy when 0A stops answering the radio.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Have there been any accounts of tank shots taking out helicopters in the air?

 

[AnthonyBoscia]

.....

 

[Domen]

What about situations where the defense is stronger, and the enemy will exhaust himself attacking you?

I think such situations are very rare.

Usually when you are stronger, you want to attack rather than defend.

Defence is by definition, usually - with some exceptions of course - applied by the less numerous or / and the weaker one.

And as Flying Pig wrote, attack surely requires to have firepower superiority - but it can be done by applying the concentration and economy of force rules, even if along entire frontline you don't have a 3 to 1 superiority in firepower, you can concentrate most of your forces in a key area to achieve it.

Flying Pig, you also wrote that aggression and speed are necessary for a successful attack. Thanks for ensuring me in my idea about this!

It seems that such thing like "slow, systematic, methodical attack" is a very bad idea. Because it gives time for defender to bring in reinforcements.

Such attacks, preeceded by hours and hours or sometimes days of artillery preparation, were being carried out in WW1 against enemy trenches...

French war doctrine preferred such systematic, methodical attacks during the 1920s, 1930s and in 1940 - as the result all of their counterattacks in 1940 campaign simply failed. On the other hand, Nazi Germany's mode of warfare - so called "Blitzkrieg" - relied on speed, aggression and boldness of actions.

Surprise effect and confusion in enemy lines caused by it are always better than many hours of artillery preparation I suppose.

But in Pacific islands campaigns the US successfully relied on their many times superior firepower to overcome Japanese dug-in defences.

It is much better though, to deliver a vast volume of firepower over a short period of time, rather than bombarding enemy positions for many days.

==================================

BTW - is there any use for steel-and-concrete fortifications nowadays? For example would something like a Maginot Line be of any use nowadays?

It seems to me that after WW2 there were no any major military conflicts where such fortifications played important role. But maybe I'm wrong?

 

[HeraldtheGreat]

How's the toilet paper? One ply, I presume?

Hope I'm not repeating a question.

 

[caketastydelish]

Do you find the song 'soldier boy' to be offensive?


Link to video.

 

[r16]

Again, I'm not sure if this works in a modern tank, but I have heard of partisans during the war using a ditch to immobilise a vehicle, then putting a standard grenade into the gun barrel to disable it.

I've been in situations whereby things have gone horribly wrong and company commanders found themselves unable to confer with battalion command - in one notable instance, because battalion command had been shot.

have been trying to follow Syrian events and according to the web grenade in barrel thing happened at least once . Lack of infantry allows lots of situations like a guy jumping from a Street corner to fire a RPG-7 at a T-72 from 10 metres or less and penetrate the front armour .

ı know you were in Falklands or at least in the Parachute Regiment . Is that the Goose Green you are mentioning ?

 

[kochman]

Have there been any accounts of tank shots taking out helicopters in the air?

Absolutely.
Helicopters are generally sent in before jets, to get rid of anti-air sights.
However, tanks are a somewhat effective counter... to something that is tough to counter. Helicopters have the upper hand.

We had air defense artillery platoons, which were guys with stingers basically, to take out helos.


Someone asked about infantry with appropriate weaponry (anti-tan guns/missiles).
You're basically screwed. See the Battle of the Bulge, for example.
Most infantry platoons carry several anti-tank missiles, however, for something like a T-72, you'll likely need a javelin missile, which there are only 2 of in light infantry platoons, generally.

Light/paratrooper infantry tends to shy away from tanks, if possible.

 

[El_Machinae]

I was wondering suddenly how the soldiers train with modern variants of the LAW rockets? Aren't they something like $1,000 per shot? While normal small arms, I'd imagine you put a few thousand rounds through your barrel as you get better and better. But that'd be an astronomical cost with these expensive weapons. And how would the rockets get distributed in a platoon? How does it get decided who has one?

 

[Flying Pig]

They have sighting rounds, which you fire to check that you're on target, which I imagine cost a huge amount less than the real thing. To be honest, there wasn't very much training done with them when I was in, because you'll be using your rifle far more than you'll be using the LAW, and even then it's fairly self-explanatory once you know how to work it. As for distribution, it's the same as anything big and heavy: the bigger and heavier the man, the heavier his kit. It's not much fun being a prop forward in a light infantry unit.

 

[cav scout]

I was wondering suddenly how the soldiers train with modern variants of the LAW rockets? Aren't they something like $1,000 per shot? While normal small arms, I'd imagine you put a few thousand rounds through your barrel as you get better and better. But that'd be an astronomical cost with these expensive weapons. And how would the rockets get distributed in a platoon? How does it get decided who has one?

In the U.S. Army the current version of the disposable LAW rocket is called the AT-4. They probably cost around $2000 per rocket. The AT-4 doesn't have a sighting round (as it is disposable) but there is a trainer that shoots a 9mm round that has the same trajectory as the rocket. Naturally this is much cheaper than shooting rockets. The drawback is you don't get the same "experience" with the back blast and all that. I've only used this trainer when I was in basic training. When you get to your unit there is always more important stuff to train on and never enought time to do everything. I have fired one live AT-4 in my career (a "familiarization" fire). It doesn't go "whoosh" like in the movies, there is a load bang and the rocket is down range before you know it.

There isn't an official "gunner" duty position for the AT-4 in the Army TO&E. The number carried is a function of the mission. A common allocation for "not expecting anything but better take some just in case" would be one per rifle squad (carried by one of the riflemen). If you are wanting to stay light and the vehicle threat is nil you just don't take them. If you expect to encounter armor naturally you would take more (it's not an ideal anti-armor weapon but it is better than nothing). It also has uses against light-skinned vehicles and bunkers. It can also add psychologically to gaining fire superiority in a fire fight.

The dedicated anti-armor weapon at the platoon/company level is the Javelin missile. Two are allocated per rifle platoon in the weapons squad (each with a gunner and AG, 4 soldiers total).

The U.S. Marines have a modern version of the Bazooka called the SMAW. This take rocket reloads and has a marking round like FP mentioned.

 

[capslock]

LAW and AT-4 trainers are made from expended tubes of live rockets. They are converted and retrofitted as trainers.

The LAW trainers are sub-caliber rockets and still produce a back blast. Each trainer can be reloaded (it loads from the rear) and fired over and over, but due to the nature of the LAW (being collapsible), they tend to break quickly. They are very difficult to train with as a result.

AT-4 trainers just fire 9mm tracer rounds. They are also loaded from the rear, but are much easier to train with than the LAW.

SMAWs fire spotting rounds (tracers), yes, but they are not a substitute for the rocket in training. The SMAW can fire inert rockets for training when HE rockets are unavailable or unsupportable.

 

[Uncle Anton]

Or if you don't want to fire subcal, you can train on a virtual facility. No substitute for the real thing but at the end of the day your budget will dictate your training outcomes.

 

[El_Machinae]

Shouldn't the AT-4 be capable of being produced in a 'training round' type of way? Like, sure, disposable, but dummy warheads have got to be vastly cheaper than lives ones?

 

[Uncle Anton]

Shouldn't the AT-4 be capable of being produced in a 'training round' type of way? Like, sure, disposable, but dummy warheads have got to be vastly cheaper than lives ones?

Most "training rounds" are inert. So say I'm training on a Carl Gustav, the shell My #2 loads is an old shell that would've been deactivated when it hit it's (for want of a better term) Use-By date. If you're training on the old 66 LAW you just use an old tube for those purposes as it's a single shot weapon.

I've never trained on the AT-4, but I assume a training round would be available, since training "dummies" can be used for everything from 5.56 ball to grenades, claymores and shells.

Such rounds are useful for drills and weapons handling, IA's and stoppages etc but by their nature they can't test application of fire. If you're cutting costs that's where subcal or a virtual range come in handy...