G2lllilc 1Ll'lllil

AD-A284IIINlDl!l il111111111 377 113ll !1 ANTI-ARMOR DEFENSE DATA STUDY (A2D2) DRAFT FINAL REPORT VOLUME I -- TECHNICAL REPORT DTIC (E ELECTEL AP 1 3 1994 i a tCp F An Employee-Owned Company #_oý94-29558 g2lllilC 1ll'lllil 1•o•.- SAIC RPT 90-xxxx ANTI-ARMOR DEFENSE DATA STUDY (A2D2) DRAFT FINAL REPORT, I -- TECHNICAL REPORT VOLUME UPiI 9, 1990 MARCH Victoria I. Young Charles M. Baily Joyce B. Boykin Lloyd J. Karamales James A. Wojcik Albert D. McJoynt (Consultant) PREPARED FOR AGENCY ARM4Y CONCEPTS ANALYSIS docuzent ýas been approved THE US UNDER This and s3ae; xit U for pubiic reie-se i .ziizited CONTRACT NUMBER MDA903-88-D-100 d0sribution DELIVERY ORDER 40 of the in this report are thoseofficial findings contained . .. do•k beyntudasotherof the Army authorsviews, and opinions,shoul and/or official Department "The not be construed as an dUld t her o Army or decision unless so bedesignated addressed to Director, US position, policy,Comments or suggestions should documentation 20814-2797. Woodmont Avenue, Bethesda, MD Concepts Analysis Agency, 8120 INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION SCIENCE APPLICATIONS Division Operations Analysis Military TI-7-2 1710 Goodridge Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102 CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE I Form ApprOed REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBINo 0704.0188 __ExP Date Jun30 1986 RT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION lb RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS Unclassified None RITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY 3 DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT NA 9%SSIFICATION /DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE NA RMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) 5 MONITORING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S) C 90- to be assigned - OF PERFORMING ORGANIZATION 16b. OFFICE SYMBOL 7a NAME OF MONITORING ORGANIZATION :e Applications Intl Corp (if applicable) US Army Concepts Analysis Agency ESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 7b. ADDRESS(City, State, and ZIP Code) Goodridge Drive, McLean VA 22102 8120 Woodmont Avenue 7-2 Bethesda, MD 20814-2797 OF FUNDING/ SPONSORING j b OFFICE SYMBOL 9. PROCUREMENT INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER kNIZATIONA (if applicable) Army Concepts Analysis Ag CSCA-MVM MDA903-88-D-1000, D.C• #40 ESS (City, State, and ZIP Code) 10. SOURCE OF FUNDING NUMBERS 0 Woodmont Aye, Bethesda MD 20814-2797 PROGRAM IPROJECT ITASK IWORK UNIT ELEMENT NO. I NO NO. ACCESSION NO (Include Security Classification) i-Armor Defense Data Study (A2D2), Vol I - Techn Rpt; Vol 2 - Description of Mortain Combat Actions )NAL AUTHOR(S) ,.Victoria; Baily, C.M.,;Karamales, Lloyd J.; Boykin, Joyce B.; McJoynt. Albert E OF REPORT 113b TIME COVERED 114. DATE^bF AEPORT (y4§r Month, Day) I15. PAGE COUNT hnical Report FROM 811/R. TO3._9.03.'UernU0 I I 800 ,EMENTARY NOTATION COSATI CODES 18. SUBJECT TERMS (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) GROUP SUB-GROUP Anti-armor, WWII, historical analysis, weapon degradation, database RACT (Continue on reverse if necessary and identify by block number) objective of the effort was to collect historical data on at least five actions re US was in defense of enemy armor. The data will be used in a joint US/UK analysis the degradation in anti-armor defense effectiveness under combat conditions. rteen combat actions were described in detail from the engagements at St. Barthelmy, Fantay and Abbaye Blanche, France during the battle of Mortain in August 1944. combat actions are presented in both narrative form and in data tables with all ntified data displayed. A database and hard copy file was also prepared and delivered a final product. DTT Q'-,LiyY h.K r J) 3 IlUBUTION / AVAILABILITY O ABSTRACT 21 ABSTRACT SECURITY CLASSIFICATION CLASSIFIED/UNLIMITED Mn SAME AS RPT 0 DTIC USERS OF RESPON IB LN •IVIDUAL 22b TELEP' lONE (Include Area Code) [22c OFFICE SY MBOL qr. Howard 1ntey 202-295-5228 CSCA-MVM W 1473. 84 MAR 83 APR edition may be used until exhausted SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE All other editions are obsolete STUDY SUMMARY ANTI-ARMOR DEFENSE DATA STUDY (A2D2) PRINCIPAL FINDINGS There are data available at the level of detail required for evaluating US defensive anti-armor combat actions during WWII. They are primarily in the battles and engagements in the 1944 1945 North Europe theater. There are still surviving WWII veterans of these actions that provide a good source of data. PRINCIPAL LIMITATIONS Detailed data are not available in all WWII anti-armor battles and engagements, particularly in the North African campaigns. SCOPE OF EFFORT The scope of the effort was to collect, organize and document detailed historical data on five combat actions in which US forces were defending against enemy armor attack in WWII. Defensive actions were not to include tanks against tanks. STUDY OBJECTIVE The objective is to collect historical data on five US anti-tank actions in WWII. The data will be combined with comparable data assembled by the UK and used in a joint US/UK analysis of the degradation in anti-armor defense effectiveness under combat conditions. The degradation factors will allow projections of the combat performance of future anti-armor defenses to be based upon a balanced combination of historical and instrumented field test data. BASIC APPROACH The approach was phased with this study being Phase I. Phase I included expanding the list of 30 potential engagements for detailed data collection provided by the Center for Military History to 46 potential engagements, performing a preliminary literature search of source data for the 46 engagements, prioritizing the list and developing detailed data collection plans for the top ten engagements. Data was collected for the number 2 engagement, as chosen by the US Army Concepts Analysis Agency, to determine if the detail data was truly available and combat actions could be described at the level required. In addition, resources would be assessed for doing so. A database, hard copy files of all source material and narratives of the actions were developed. Phase II would be based upon acceptable findings in Phase I and would extend the number of combat actions developed. REASON FOR PERFORM4ING THE STUDY The UK Defense Operational Analysis Establishment (DOAE) has quantitatively compared small arms performance in actual combat with their performance in instrumented field trials. The latter generally form the basis for inputs to US Army wargames and simulations. Because of the promise of DOAE's approach, an informal agreement was reached between the US Deputy Under Secretary of the Army (Operations Research) and DOAE to pursue a collaborative study to extend this analysis to anti-tank weapons. STUDY SPONSOR US Army Concepts Analysis Agency PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR Victoria I. Young Science Applications International Corporation COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS Director US Army Concepts Analysis Agency 8120 Woodmont Avenue Bethesda, MD 20814-2797 ACTION TAKEN AS RESULT OF FINDINGS DTIC ACCESSION NUMBER OF FINAL REPORT Accesion For To be assigned NTIS CRA&I DTIC TAB 5 Jt~st:iic.]tion ......... ... By TABLE OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 TECHNICAL REPORT SECTION TITLE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ........................................... 1-1 1.2 Objective ............................................ 1-1 1.3 List of Engagements .................................. 1-2 1.4 Data Requirements .................................... 1-2 1.5 Methodology .......................................... 1-3 2 LITERATURE SEARCH 2.1 General .............................................. 2-1 2.2 Potential Source Data Locations ...................... 2-4 2.3 Primary Sources of Data............................ 2-12 2.4 Secondary Sources of Data............................ 2-15 2.5 Summary of Findings from Literature Search ........... 2-15 3 EVALUATION OF DATA AVAILABILITY AND PRIORITIZATION OF ENGAGEMENTS 3.1 General .......................................... 3-1 3.2 Assessment Methodology...... .......................... 3-1 3.3 Summary of Engagement Evaluation ..................... 3-7 4 DATA COLLECTION PLANS 4.1 General .............................................. 4-1 4.2 Dom Butgenbach, Belgium............................ 4-2 4.3 St. Barthelmy, France ... ........................... 4-5 4.4 Abbaye Blanche, France ............................... 4-8 4.5 Krinkelter, BelgiumFr ................................. 4-11 4.6 Rocherath, Belgium .................................. 4-13 4.7 La Maison Rouge, France...... ......................... 4-15 4.8 Hill 314, Mortain, France............................ 4-18 4.9 Stoutmont, Belgium ............................... 4-21 4.10 Kommerscheidt, Germany..... .......................... 4-24 4.11 Hosingen, Germany . .............................. 4-27 4.12 Summ ary .............................................. 4-29 5 DETAILED DATA COLLECTION AND SUMMARIZATION OF MORTAIN 5.1 General .............................................. 5-1 5.2 Researching the Data............................... 5-2 5.3 Oral Interviews ...Da............................. 5-2 5.4 Summary of Data Collection ........................... 5-4 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont') 6 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Findings ..... ..................................6-1 6.2 Recommendations .... ................................. 6-1 APPENDICES TO VOLUME I A LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS AN& STATEMENT OF CONTRACTOR'S QUALITY REVIEW BOARD B GOVERNMENT STATEMENT OF WORK C BIBLIOGRAPHY D INDEX OF FILES E DETAILED EVALUATION OF ENGAGEMENTS F TANK DESTROYER BATTALION RECORD SEARCH VOLUME II US ANTI-TANK DEFENSE AT MORTAIN, FRANCE (AUGUST, 1944) ii LIST OF TABLES TABLE TITLE PAGE 1-1 List of Engagements for Assessment ......................... 1-3 1-2 Data

Load more