DOCSLIB.ORG

The Historical Combat Effectiveness of Lighter-Weight Armored Forces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Historical Combat Effectiveness of Lighter-Weight Armored Forces The Dupuy Institute 1497 Chain Bridge Road Suite 100 McLean, VA 22101 Phone: (703) 356-1151 Fax: (703) 356-1152 Website: http://dupuyinstitute.org/ THE HISTORICAL COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS OF LIGHTER-WEIGHT ARMORED FORCES FINAL REPORT Contract Number DASW01-98-D-0058, Task Order 005 6 August 2001 Prepared for: U.S. Department of the Army Center for Army Analysis 6001 Goethals Road Fort Belvoir, Virginia 22060-5230 I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Definitions .................................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Plan..................................................................................................................................................... 2 Technology ................................................................................................................................................... 3 Wheeled Tanks ............................................................................................................................................. 3 The Interim Brigade/Division ....................................................................................................................... 4 II. USE OF ARMOR IN CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS........................................................................................ 5 Presence of Armor in SSCOs........................................................................................................................ 7 Size of Armor Forces in SSCOs ................................................................................................................... 8 Use of Armor in Peacekeeping ..................................................................................................................... 9 Other Considerations .................................................................................................................................. 10 Urban Terrain and SSCOs .......................................................................................................................... 11 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 12 III. USE OF ARMOR IN AN INSURGENCY........................................................................................................... 15 The Use of Armor in the German Campaign in the Balkans, 1941 to 1945 (see Appendix VII)................ 15 The Use of Armor in the Vietnam War, 1965 to 1975................................................................................ 16 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 18 IV. USE OF ARMOR IN A CONVENTIONAL WAR ............................................................................................. 19 The Philippines, 1941 ................................................................................................................................. 19 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Normandy, D-Day 1944.............................................................................................................................. 20 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 21 Task Force Smith and After, US Armor in Korea, 1950-1951 ................................................................... 21 UN and North Korean Tank Losses............................................................................................................ 23 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 23 The US 82nd Airborne Division in Operation DESERT SHEILD .............................................................. 24 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 25 Conventional Conflict Against an Armor Supported or Armor Heavy Force............................................. 26 Tank Destroyers..................................................................................................................................... 28 US Mechanized Cavalry in World War II.............................................................................................. 29 Observations .......................................................................................................................................... 29 Conventional Conflict Against a Primarily Infantry Force......................................................................... 30 Emergency Insertion Against an Armor Supported or Armor Heavy Force............................................... 30 Emergency Insertion Against a Primarily Infantry Force ........................................................................... 31 V. STUDY CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................... 32 Small Scale Contingency Operations.......................................................................................................... 32 Insurgencies ................................................................................................................................................ 32 Conventional Warfare................................................................................................................................. 32 Conventional Conflict Against An Armor Supported Or Armor Heavy Force...................................... 32 Conventional Conflict Against A Primarily Infantry Force................................................................... 32 Emergency Insertion Against An Armor Supported Or Armor Heavy Force........................................ 33 Emergency Insertion Against A Primarily Infantry Force ..................................................................... 33 Other Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 33 Wheeled Vehicles .................................................................................................................................. 33 Vehicle Design....................................................................................................................................... 33 Terrain Issues......................................................................................................................................... 34 Operational Factors................................................................................................................................ 34 Casualty Sensitivity ............................................................................................................................... 34 APPENDIX I. A DESCRIPTION OF THE USE OF ARMOR IN SSCOS BY MISSION TYPE............................. 35 Aid .............................................................................................................................................................. 35 Military Assistance ..................................................................................................................................... 35 Insurgency/Counterinsurgency ................................................................................................................... 36 Show-the-Flag (including "Maintain Presence" and "Show-of-Force") ..................................................... 38 Raids ........................................................................................................................................................... 39 Interventions ............................................................................................................................................... 39 i Conventional Hostilities.............................................................................................................................. 41 Evacuation/Rescue...................................................................................................................................... 42 Small Hostage Rescue/Anti-terrorist Missions ........................................................................................... 42 Police Action............................................................................................................................................... 43 Not Analyzed .............................................................................................................................................. 43 APPENDIX II. ARMOR USAGE IN CONTINGENCIES ........................................................................................ 44 APPENDIX III. LIST OF SMALL SCALE CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS BY TYPE ...................................... 49 APPENDIX IV. RATING OF TERRAIN IN SSCOs ................................................................................................ 54 APPENDIX V. CASE STUDY: THE PHILIPPINES 1941-1942.............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Medium Mark a Whippet
    MEDIUM MARK A WHIPPET DAVID FLETCHER ILLUSTRATED BY HENRY MORSHEAD © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com NEW VANGUARD 207 MEDIUM MARK A WHIPPET DAVID FLETCHER ILLUSTRATED BY HENRY MORESHEAD © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com CONTENTS THE WHIPPET’S FORERUNNER: THE TRITTON CHASER 4 PRODUCTION OF THE WHIPPET 10 DRIVING THE WHIPPET 12 THE WHIPPET IN ACTION 16 WHIPPETS ABROAD 29 MEDIUM B 30 MEDIUM C: THE HORNET 36 MEDIUM D 40 THE STUDEBAKER TANK 46 INDEX 48 © Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com MEDIUM MARK A WHIPPET THE WHIPPET’S FORERUNNER: THE TRITTON CHASER According to the engineer William Tritton, credited as one of the inventors of the tank, he was asked to produce a lighter tank when he visited the Somme on 20 September 1916. This was only five days since tanks had been launched onto the battlefield for the very first time. Tritton does not say who requested this, but the implication must be that it was Sir Douglas Haig, Commander-in-Chief of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF), either directly or through his staff. No matter who was responsible, it was either remarkably prescient or a very lucky guess. It is valid to ask whether the idea of a faster, lighter machine was considered as an alternative to the slower, heavier tanks, or as an adjunct to them, which we have always assumed, but the fact that Tritton’s design did not have the trench crossing ability of the heavy tanks, and that improved versions of the heavy tank were developed, must support the adjunct theory in retrospect. It is interesting to consider what fellow engineer Walter Wilson, another crucial contributor to the early tank, knew of all this.
    [Show full text]
  • The Centurion Tank Pdf, Epub, Ebook
    THE CENTURION TANK PDF, EPUB, EBOOK Pat Ware,Brian Delf | 128 pages | 19 Apr 2013 | Pen & Sword Books Ltd | 9781781590119 | English | South Yorkshire, United Kingdom The Centurion Tank PDF Book The Comet was a relatively new design entering service only in and seeing additional combat in the upcoming Korean War. Vietnam Studies. July Learn how and when to remove this template message. Ivan Siiak. Retrieved 2 September Centurion Universal Tank — The next Centurion model, Mk. Maximum Range: miles km. Despite these changes, the department concluded that the weight restriction would not allow the tank design to withstand the 88 mm rounds. During the Indo-Pakistani War, Allied tanks were deployed on both sides. Israelis entering Hebron captured 25 Jordanian Centurion tanks. Cape Town: Struik Publishers. Archived from the original on 17 June While the air war was of particular historical note - it featured the first aerial combat between jet fighters - the war would still be hard fought on the ground across unforgiving terrain and environments. Centurion Main Battle Tank Specifications. The Mk 11 was an Mk 6 model with the ranging gun and infrared equipment. Great Bookham, Surrey: Profile Publications. Osprey Publishing. It was equipped with a pounder Cape Town: Tafelberg. The designations follows the pattern of main gun calibre in centimetres followed by the service order number. Height: 9. Related Content " ". Three were lost in training incidents with no deaths among the crew. The Centurion Mk II promised better battlefield protection through use of more armor and serial production from a strong government order was underway by the end of November of It became one of the most widely used tank designs, equipping armies around the world, with some still in service until the s.
    [Show full text]
  • Errors in American Tank Development in World War II Jacob Fox James Madison University
    James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2013 The rW ong track: Errors in American tank development in World War II Jacob Fox James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Fox, Jacob, "The rW ong track: Errors in American tank development in World War II" (2013). Masters Theses. 215. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/215 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Wrong Track: Errors in American Tank Development in World War II Jacob Fox A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of History May 2013 ii Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................... iii Introduction and Historiography ....................................................................... 1 Chapter One: America’s Pre-War tank Policy and Early War Development ....... 19 McNair’s Tank Destroyers Chapter Two: The Sherman on the Battlefield ................................................. 30 Reaction in the Press Chapter Three: Ordnance Department and the T26 ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Tanks and Tank Warfare | International Encyclopedia of The
    Version 1.0 | Last updated 17 May 2016 Tanks and Tank Warfare By Michael David Kennedy World War I introduced new technologies and doctrine in a quest to overcome the tactical stalemate of the trenches. The first tanks had great potential that would be capitalized upon during the next world war, but early models suffered from design flaws and lack of doctrine for their use on the battlefield. Table of Contents 1 Definition and Background 2 Characteristics 3 Development in Great Britain 4 Battle of the Somme (1 July-18 November 1916) 5 Battle of Cambrai (20-30 November 1917) 6 French Tanks 7 German Tanks 8 Tanks in the American Expeditionary Forces 9 Impact of Tanks on World War I Selected Bibliography Citation Definition and Background Tanks are armored vehicles designed to combine the military factors of fire, maneuver and protection. Although the concept of armored vehicles preceded the Great War, the tank was specifically developed to overcome the stalemate of trench warfare on the Western Front that followed the First Battle of Ypres (19 October-22 November 1914). The marrying of recent technological advances, such as the internal combustion engine with armor plating, enabled the tank’s development during World War I. Characteristics The first tanks introduced in 1916 were generally slow and hard to maneuver, and they performed poorly in rugged terrain. The early models were heavily influenced by commercial tractors. While impervious to barbed wire, small arms, and shrapnel, their primitive armor was still susceptible to heavy machine gun fire and direct hits from high explosive artillery rounds.
    [Show full text]
  • The M1A2 Abrams: the Last Main Battle Tank?
    The M1A2 Abrams: The Last Main Battle Tank? by Stanley C. Crist With its superb integration of fire- Although Longbow Hellfire was de- is expected to enter production around power, mobility, and armor protection, signed for the AH-64D Apache heli- 2015, replacing the M1-series tanks. the M1A2 Abrams is very nearly the copter, there is no obvious reason it Since the next generation armored ultimate incarnation of the main battle couldn’t be fired from an armored ve- fighting vehicle is no longer referred to tank (MBT). Although more advanced hicle. Indeed, at least one nation is ap- as an MBT, can it be inferred that the design concepts have been published in parently developing a similar system. future combat system need not be a recent years, it will likely prove quite According to the August/December tank as we know it today? difficult to produce an MBT suffi- 1993 issue of ASIAN MILITARY RE- If self-guided missiles are chosen for ciently superior (to the M1A2) to jus- VIEW, India has developed the NAG, a tify the cost, so why not look for a bet- fire-and-forget antitank missile with a the primary armament of the FCS, a ter idea? range of six kilometers. It was planned number of advantages present them- that the NAG would be the armament selves. For one, it ought to be possible to eliminate the turret assembly; this The Missile Option for a tracked combat vehicle. With would greatly simplify construction, ground surveillance radar (GSR) incor- When Egyptian Saggers surprised Is- porated into its fire control system, with a corresponding decrease in pro- duction cost and vehicle weight.
    [Show full text]
  • 9/11 Report”), July 2, 2004, Pp
    Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page i THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page v CONTENTS List of Illustrations and Tables ix Member List xi Staff List xiii–xiv Preface xv 1. “WE HAVE SOME PLANES” 1 1.1 Inside the Four Flights 1 1.2 Improvising a Homeland Defense 14 1.3 National Crisis Management 35 2. THE FOUNDATION OF THE NEW TERRORISM 47 2.1 A Declaration of War 47 2.2 Bin Ladin’s Appeal in the Islamic World 48 2.3 The Rise of Bin Ladin and al Qaeda (1988–1992) 55 2.4 Building an Organization, Declaring War on the United States (1992–1996) 59 2.5 Al Qaeda’s Renewal in Afghanistan (1996–1998) 63 3. COUNTERTERRORISM EVOLVES 71 3.1 From the Old Terrorism to the New: The First World Trade Center Bombing 71 3.2 Adaptation—and Nonadaptation— ...in the Law Enforcement Community 73 3.3 . and in the Federal Aviation Administration 82 3.4 . and in the Intelligence Community 86 v Final FM.1pp 7/17/04 5:25 PM Page vi 3.5 . and in the State Department and the Defense Department 93 3.6 . and in the White House 98 3.7 . and in the Congress 102 4. RESPONSES TO AL QAEDA’S INITIAL ASSAULTS 108 4.1 Before the Bombings in Kenya and Tanzania 108 4.2 Crisis:August 1998 115 4.3 Diplomacy 121 4.4 Covert Action 126 4.5 Searching for Fresh Options 134 5.
    [Show full text]
  • Procurement Politics, Technology Transfer and the Challenges of Collaborative MBT Projects in the NATO Alliance Since 1945
    A Standard European Tank? Procurement Politics, Technology Transfer and the Challenges of Collaborative MBT Projects in the NATO Alliance since 1945 Mike Cubbin School of Arts and Media Salford University Submitted to the University of Salford in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2019 Abstract International cooperation in weapons technology projects has long been a feature of alliance politics; and, there are many advantages to both international technology transfer and standardisation within military alliances. International collaboration between national defence industries has produced successful weapon systems from technologically advanced fighter aircraft to anti-tank missiles. Given the success of many joint defence projects, one unresolved question is why there have been no successful collaborative international main battle tank (MBT) projects since 1945. This thesis seeks to answer this question by considering four case studies of failed attempts to produce an MBT through an international collaborative tank project: first and second, the Franco-German efforts to produce a standard European tank, or Euro-Panzer (represented by two separate projects in 1957-63 and 1977- 83); third, the US-German MBT-70 project (1963-70); and, fourth, the Anglo-German Future Main Battle Tank, or KPz3 (1971-77). In order to provide an explanation of the causes of failure on four separate occasions, the analysis includes reference to other high-technology civilian and military joint projects which either succeeded,
    [Show full text]
  • D-DAY in NORMANDY Speaker: Walter A. Viali, PMP Company
    D-DAY IN NORMANDY Speaker: Walter A. Viali, PMP Company: PMO To Go LLC Website: www.pmotogo.com Welcome to the PMI Houston Conference & Expo and Annual Job Fair 2015 • Please put your phone on silent mode • Q&A will be taken at the close of this presentation • There will be time at the end of this presentation for you to take a few moments to complete the session survey. We value your feedback which allows us to improve this annual event. 1 D-DAY IN NORMANDY The Project Management Challenges of the “Longest Day” Walter A. Viali, PMP PMO To Go LLC WALTER A. VIALI, PMP • Worked with Texaco in Rome, Italy and in Houston, Texas for 25 years and “retired” in 1999. • Multiple PMO implementations throughout the world since 1983. • On the speaker circuit since 1987. • PMI member since 1998, became a PMP in 1999. • Co-founder of PMO To Go LLC (2002). • PMI Houston Chapter Board Member from 2002 to 2008 and its President in 2007. • PMI Clear Lake - Galveston Board Member in 2009-2010. • PMI Region 6 Mentor (2011-2014). • Co-author of “Accelerating Change with OPM” (2013). • Project Management Instructor for UH College of Technology. 3 Project Management and Leadership in History 4 More than 9,000 of our boys rest in this foreign land they helped liberate! ‹#› 5 WHAT WAS D-DAY? • In the early morning hours of June 6, 1944, American, British, and Canadian troops launched an attack by sea, landing on the beaches of Normandy on the northern coast of Nazi-occupied France.
    [Show full text]
  • The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare
    No. 109 JUNE 2016 The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare Michael B. Kim The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of ILW’s editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER No. 109, June 2016 The Uncertain Role of the Tank in Modern War: Lessons from the Israeli Experience in Hybrid Warfare by Michael B. Kim Major Michael B. Kim currently serves as the Squadron Executive Officer for the 8th Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment, 2d Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2d Infantry Division. Prior to his current position, he graduated from the Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and completed the Art of War Scholars Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Neptune Wrecks Project Report
    NEPTUNE WRECKS PROJECT REPORT Foreword Members of Southsea Sub-Aqua Club are proud to present this NEPTUNE Wrecks report as a record of all of the activities and investigations into local wrecks in the Portsmouth to Selsey Bill area. The project was a natural follow-on to our highly successful Tanks and Bulldozers investigations of 2008 and concerns a number of wrecks believed to be associated with the maritime phase of the WW2 Invasion of Normandy (Operation NEPTUNE). This report is testament to what individuals and/or groups of divers can achieve with the help and support of others. These wrecks are not the ancient wooden ships of long ago or the valuable treasures that grab the public attention, but they are associated with tragedies of a more modern era – a time of war, conflict and ultimately victory which have a real and direct relevance to the vast majority of people along the South Coast and beyond. Below the water these reminders of the valiant efforts of the men involved in the largest ever maritime invasion are not evident to many and we aim to share with others the results of our efforts so that their contribution in history is not forgotten. Alison Mayor Project Leader - NEPTUNE Wrecks Southsea Sub-Aqua Club BSAC 0009 31 May 2010 All enquiries about the content of this report should be addressed to Alison Mayor, Southsea Sub-Aqua Club. email [email protected] or Fort Widley, Portsdown Hill Road, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3LS. The report is subject to Copyright and therefore not to be reproduced without permission of the owner.
    [Show full text]
  • JFQ 31 JFQ▼ FORUM Sponds to Aggravated Peacekeeping in Joint Pub 3–0
    0203 C2 & Pgs 1-3 3/3/04 9:07 AM Page ii The greatest lesson of this war has been the extent to which air, land, and sea operations can and must be coordinated by joint planning and unified command. —General Henry H. (“Hap”) Arnold Report to the Secretary of War Cover 2 0203 C2 & Pgs 1-3 3/27/04 7:18 AM Page iii JFQ Page 1—no folio 0203 C2 & Pgs 1-3 3/3/04 9:07 AM Page 2 CONTENTS A Word from the Chairman 4 by John M. Shalikashvili In This Issue 6 by the Editor-in-Chief Living Jointness 7 by William A. Owens Taking Stock of the New Joint Age 15 by Ike Skelton JFQ Assessing the Bottom-Up Review 22 by Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr. JOINT FORCE QUARTERLY Living Jointness JFQ FORUM Bottom-Up Review Standing Up JFQ Joint Education Coalitions Theater Missle Vietnam Defense as Military History Standing Up Coalitions Atkinson‘s Crusade Defense Transportation 25 The Whats and Whys of Coalitions 26 by Anne M. Dixon 94 W93inter Implications for U.N. Peacekeeping A PROFESSIONAL MILITARY JOURNAL 29 by John O.B. Sewall PHOTO CREDITS The cover features an Abrams main battle tank at National Training Center (Military The Cutting Edge of Unified Actions Photography/Greg Stewart). Insets: [top left] 34 by Thomas C. Linn Operation Desert Storm coalition officers reviewing forces in Kuwait City (DOD), [bottom left] infantrymen fording a stream in Vietnam Preparing Future Coalition Commanders (DOD), [top right] students at the Armed Forces Staff College (DOD), and [bottom right] a test 40 by Terry J.
    [Show full text]
  • Tank Training Site, Fritton Lake Somerleyton, Ashby & Herringfleet HER Ref. SOL
    Tank Training Site, Fritton Lake Somerleyton, Ashby & Herringfleet HER ref. SOL 029 Archaeological Survey Report SCCAS Report No. 2013/052 Client: Suffolk County Council Author: Mark Sommers April 2013 © Suffolk County Council Archaeological Service Tank Training Site, Fritton Lake Somerleyton, Ashby & Herringfleet HER ref. SOL 029 Archaeological Survey Report SCCAS Report No. 2013/022 Author: Mark Sommers Contributions By: Stuart Burgess Report Date: April 2013 HER Information Site Code: SOL 029 Site Name: World War 2 Tank Training Site, Fritton Lake Report Number 2013/052 Planning Application No: n/a Date of Fieldwork: 25th - 28th April 2013 Grid Reference: TM 4803 9977 Oasis Reference: suffolkc1-148843 Curatorial Officer: Sarah Poppy Project Officer: Mark Sommers Client/Funding Body: funded by the European Interreg IV Project Client Reference: n/a Digital report submitted to Archaeological Data Service: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/library/greylit Disclaimer Any opinions expressed in this report about the need for further archaeological work are those of the Field Projects Team alone. Ultimately the need for further work will be determined by the Local Planning Authority and its Archaeological Advisors when a planning application is registered. Suffolk County Council’s archaeological contracting services cannot accept responsibility for inconvenience caused to the clients should the Planning Authority take a different view to that expressed in the report. Prepared By: Mark Sommers Date: April 2013 Approved By: Dr Rhodri Gardner Position: Contracts Manager Date: April 2013 Signed: Contents Summary 1. Introduction 1 2. Location 3 3. Historic Background 3 4. Methodology 3 5. Survey Results 4 1. Military camp 5 2.
    [Show full text]