|
Veins McGee posted:I forgot the exact max effective range for an RPG-7 but it's inside of 200Ms. This is the range as tested by the US military. Something like 25% of aimed RPG shots miss from that range and the number improves to like 75% inside of 50Ms. It is pretty loving lucky that an Iraqi RPG team managed to get within 100Ms of an entire column of vehicles equipped with high quality thermal optics. The wikipedia article on the RPG-7 cited this US Army document from 1976 which showed much higher hit probabilities at those ranges, provided an exposed target and no crosswind. Of course, that was probably assuming the RPG would be fired by a trained operator, so the typical insurgent would likely do much worse.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2011 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
Didn't the US military tend to overestimate the effectiveness of Soviet tech during the Cold War, though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 05:16
|
|
|
An RPG-7 isn't a Mig-25, when you have to make estimates on not much more than a few blurry satellite photos. You can buy/get an RPG-7 pretty much anywhere for a couple of bucks, so the US military's estimate of the effectiveness of the RPG-7 was probably from scrounging up a couple dozen RPG-7s and shooting them off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
That's entirely reasonable. Maybe the difference in training is the cause, but could production/storage be a factor? I don't know poo poo about insurgent weapons in Iraq/Afghanistan, but are they modern Russian production, Soviet leftovers, or pre-invasion local production? If they're soviet leftovers I could imagine storage having an impact on their effectiveness, and if they're local production, then maybe they're not up to the same quality control standards as the Soviet models were.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 06:35
|
|
|
OperaMouse posted:What would have been a good doctrine to fight the deep-battle one of the Soviets at the end of WW2 by a better equiped, higher trained, but numerical inferior opponent? Hard to be higher trained than the Red Army of '45. They were just about the most highly experienced army on the planet by that point. As for tactics, defense-in-depth, perhaps combined a variant of Mansteins "backhand blow" strategy would have been the best shot. The big problem for the Allies in this case is that they had no clear picture of Deep Battle back in '45. IIRC, most allied generals openly called bullshit on the soviet advance during August Storm because no way could any army, let alone the "crude" Soviets, pull an offensive on that scale at such speed. (Leavenworth Papers No.7 and No.8 by David Glantz are two very good reads on August Storm and are afaik avaiale free on the internet. Magni fucked around with this message at 20:46 on Dec 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 10:47
|
|
|
EvanSchenck posted:Fair enough. Do we know what killed them, or is that secret for reasons of operational security? I would guess IEDs or lucky hits from RPGs. Some of the detailed data is classified, but it seems like there is some stuff out there open source. Obviously I won't post any classified stuff... Pretty much any high explosive bigger than about 5kg/10lbs is going to be a serious threat to a tank depending on the proximity of the explosion and how it is directed. For reference, a 155mm class shell usually has between 12 and 15 lbs of HE. A shell this size, if it hits a tank directly when fired from a gun, will almost certainly destroy the tank (probably by knocking off the turret). A shell detonated under or directly against a tank in an IED situation is going to have a similar effect. That said, the good news for tankers is that they need only worry about concussion from HE, not shrapnel, so the effectiveness of the shell goes down very quickly as the distance between the tank and the shell increases. This is because HE isn't a directional charge; all of its energy goes in all directions, and its power decreases exponentially as you get further away. Against normal HE targets (dudes and light skinned vehicles) shrapnel then becomes the main killing mechanism. As a general reference, a crew and tank are probably going to be pretty safe at 10m, though the crew might be a bit shaken up and some fragile components might get damaged. A bigger charge though obviously is going to be more dangerous to a tank at greater ranges. Shaped charges are a different matter; they are more of a traditional armor penetration model that we're used to seeing. The only real development in Iraq was the sheer size of the things...some got up to 600 lbs, which is ridiculous and almost indefensible if it hits you. RPG-7s and the like were never a huge threat to M1s. The M1 was designed pretty specifically to be more or less impervious to the vanilla RPG-7, and as far as I know none have caused serious damage to an M1 (there are incidents of immobilized M1s and Challengers getting hit literally by hundreds of RPG-7 warheads to no serious ill effect). Some of the newer heavy dual charge RPGs (including some new rounds for the RPG-7) are capable of penetrating thinner armor on both the Abrams and the Challenger. bewbies fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Dec 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 21:02
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In contrast, not a single Challenger 2 has been destroyed by enemy fire. Wasn't another Chally 2 also destroyed by a really, really big IED?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 21:04
|
|
|
Veins McGee posted:I forgot the exact max effective range for an RPG-7 but it's inside of 200Ms. This is the range as tested by the US military. Something like 25% of aimed RPG shots miss from that range and the number improves to like 75% inside of 50Ms. It is pretty loving lucky that an Iraqi RPG team managed to get within 100Ms of an entire column of vehicles equipped with high quality thermal optics. Don't underestimate the accuracy of RPG-7. The fact that it's cheap as poo poo means that experienced users can rack up a ton of experience shooting them. Using them as makeshift anti-air weapon against helicopters and all. The tactic used by Chechen guerillas was to shoot a number of RPG-7s all in the same spot on a Russian tank; while a single RPG-7 would hardly do any damage to a MBT, then receiving as many as seven repeat hits in the same spot did serious damage. pigdog fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Dec 23, 2011 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Aye. Some firefights in Afghanistan had seasoned Taliban fighters, often old veterans from fighting the Red Army, that were apparently able of literally lobbing RPG-7 rounds in a ballistic arc with enough accuracy for that tactic to become a real threat to Coalition infantry during firefights and hit&run attacks on FOBs. (The ones used as improvised AA weapons by the Afghans and Somalis were/are modified btw, normally by welding some steel pipe to the rear end of the weapon to redirect the backblast and by replacing the impact fuse with a simple time-delayed fuse; sometimes they also add a frag sleeve to the warhead.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
bewbies posted:(there are incidents of immobilized M1s and Challengers getting hit literally by hundreds of RPG-7 warheads to no serious ill effect). Gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't think there's any M1 that's been hit by 200+ rpg rounds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 00:04
|
|
|
Magni posted:Aye. Some firefights in Afghanistan had seasoned Taliban fighters, often old veterans from fighting the Red Army, that were apparently able of literally lobbing RPG-7 rounds in a ballistic arc with enough accuracy for that tactic to become a real threat to Coalition infantry during firefights and hit&run attacks on FOBs. There's no need to modify the fusing, the impact fuse also detonates after 400m.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 00:27
|
|
pigdog posted:Don't underestimate the accuracy of RPG-7. The fact that it's cheap as poo poo means that experienced users can rack up a ton of experience shooting them. Using them as makeshift anti-air weapon against helicopters and all. The tactic used by Chechen guerillas was to shoot a number of RPG-7s all in the same spot on a Russian tank; while a single RPG-7 would hardly do any damage to a MBT, then receiving as many as seven repeat hits in the same spot did serious damage. Speaking of Chechens, can somebody do a good write up about those nasty little wars? I've heard them mentioned a lot lately and they sound really hosed up. Like Yugoslavias break up messed up.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 01:24
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:There's no need to modify the fusing, the impact fuse also detonates after 400m. Sometimes you want to detonate it earlier. The Somalis in Mog tampered around with the fuses because the Blackhawks were flying so drat low that you would oftne be able to fire at them from a good deal closer than 400 meters. (And even just coming close to a heli is a lot easier at shorter ranges. You ain't hitting a target like that from 400 meters out.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 01:25
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:In contrast, not a single Challenger 2 has been destroyed by enemy fire. Well, much like the debate about 'destruction' of M1s going on here, perhaps no Challengers have been completely destroyed but they have definitely been penetrated by RPG-29s, and apparently on the front armor no less.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 03:40
|
|
|
LimburgLimbo posted:Well, much like the debate about 'destruction' of M1s going on here, perhaps no Challengers have been completely destroyed but they have definitely been penetrated by RPG-29s, and apparently on the front armor no less. Righteo, Challys have been penetrated a few times but 'penetrated' is a long way from 'destroyed'. All you'll be needing to do is clean up the blood and fill the hole with a rolled newspaper, and it's as good as new. This is a little different from one where every part needs to be replaced except for left side drive sprocket.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 09:22
|
|
|
Being able to turn crewmembers into squishy bits is a bit worse than scrapping a tank of all of it's components while the crew makes it out alive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 09:42
|
|
Mans posted:Being able to turn crewmembers into squishy bits is a bit worse than scrapping a tank of all of it's components while the crew makes it out alive. Your thinking like a civilian son  .Seriously though, it is pretty terrible.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Righteo, Challys have been penetrated a few times but 'penetrated' is a long way from 'destroyed'. All you'll be needing to do is clean up the blood and fill the hole with a rolled newspaper, and it's as good as new. This is a little different from one where every part needs to be replaced except for left side drive sprocket. If there is a major penetration of the crew compartment the tank is almost certainly going to require a total rebuild. The crew isn't the only thing getting vaporized in that case, all of the internals (which nowadays are pretty complicated) of the tank, the breech of the gun, the turret and steering mechanics, etc. are all in the same area and are all getting hit with the same nastyness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 14:58
|
|
|
Which is more expensive, tanks or training their crews?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 15:01
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:Which is more expensive, tanks or training their crews? Tanks by far, I'd guess, considering that your average M1 costs $6.21 million. Of course it depends on the tank, the Soviet attitude of "we have reserves" applied on T-34's just as much as it applied on the crews themselves...
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 15:04
|
|
|
Cost-wise the tanks are more expensive, but in a war you might easily have lots of extra tanks but no experienced crewmen to replace losses. You'll have built a new tank before a fresh recruit has learned how to tie his boot laces. It's pretty much the same with airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 15:50
|
|
|
Vehicles are more expensive than trained crewmen (generally), but if you have a lack of trained crewmen, you will lose both vehicle and crewmen alike in large numbers (See also: The Marianas Turkey Shoot).
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 16:52
|
|
pigdog posted:Don't underestimate the accuracy of RPG-7. The fact that it's cheap as poo poo means that experienced users can rack up a ton of experience shooting them. Using them as makeshift anti-air weapon against helicopters and all. The tactic used by Chechen guerillas was to shoot a number of RPG-7s all in the same spot on a Russian tank; while a single RPG-7 would hardly do any damage to a MBT, then receiving as many as seven repeat hits in the same spot did serious damage. It's just what I vaguely remember from some platoon training while I was in Afghanistan and not to be taken as the gospel on RPGs. From what I recall, outside of 150m you would generally be safe from point RPG fire. Boiled Water posted:Which is more expensive, tanks or training their crews? Depends on how you look at it. The initial training might be less than the cost of a tank but the intangible or untrainable attributes of a veteran crewman can't be purchased with training money.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 20:51
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:Gonna go out on a limb here and say that I don't think there's any M1 that's been hit by 200+ rpg rounds. This is the only reference I can find after a little bit of googling, but I remember hearing about a challenger that survived getting hit with a gently caress ton of rpgs, to the point that an RPG had even managed to get lucky enough to hit one of the scopes and take it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 22:39
|
|
|
Hydrogen Oxide posted:This is the only reference I can find after a little bit of googling, but I remember hearing about a challenger that survived getting hit with a gently caress ton of rpgs, to the point that an RPG had even managed to get lucky enough to hit one of the scopes and take it out. Yeah, I kinda wonder if it was hit with 70 during the same battle, or just in total over a length of time. Who can say?!
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2011 23:30
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Vehicles are more expensive than trained crewmen (generally), but if you have a lack of trained crewmen, you will lose both vehicle and crewmen alike in large numbers (See also: The Marianas Turkey Shoot). Funny you mention the Turkey Shoot. I am on a Pacific War kick right now! The Japanese, by the end of the war, had a small cadre of trained pilots who knew the business but had inferior machines. They trained the kamikazes and were saved from that fate themselves because their Commanders knew they were well trained and irreplaceable. Max Hastings and John Toland both had bits on how the kamikazes suffered death rates that were comparable to less to normal pilots engaging the American forces. This is, of course, disputed. But I find it interesting considering the losses of the Japanese in the final year of the war. Why waste pilots when you can train them to become bombs? By late '44-45 there was just no time to train a pilot to fight against an American, something like less than 75 hours of flight time against nearly 300 hours. By that point in the war we could afford to train pilots; we had a surplus, the Japanese did not. The Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 saw the IJN with only 116 aircraft operational. There was no contest anymore when the IJN's carriers were considered bait for Halsey's fleet. The Japanese had the worst of both worlds, inferior machines couples with hurried training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 01:37
|
|
|
Not to sound like a fool then, but how did the Zeros kick so much rear end in the early war? Or did they?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 02:08
|
|
|
The zeros mainly faced lovely Chinese planes and p-40s for the first couple years. It was no contest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 02:29
|
|
|
The US also had a lot of learn about tactics for dealing with the Zero. If you tried to fight a Zero the same way you'd fight another American plane, you'd lose, because it could turn inside you and work its way onto your tail. Once American pilots learned to dive, shoot, and zoom away, they were able to exploit the Zero's weaknesses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 03:17
|
|
|
Not to mention, at least on the naval side of things, the Japanese had a small number of really REALLY well trained pilots...and a lot of those guys died at Coral Sea and especially at Midway. They turned out to be literally irreplaceable, and Japanese Naval Air never recovered from the disasters of mid-1942.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 03:34
|
|
|
Are there any good christmas war stories aside from the famous football armistace? Also do you think a modern unequal war is possible to win from the side of the defenders (probably against the Americans) and how you would do this / how history's lessons are relevant? I've always been interested in how the smaller forces defended against the stronger army but can't see how you could do this in modern times without going the whole conquered but insurgency route. Not saying that this isn't effective for long term goals but is it possible to win in the short term? If anyone here has plans of doing an effort post in the near future the whole Roman-Germanic semi-pacification (as I understand it, probably wrong) would be nice. It always comes across as 'Romans met an unbeatable enemy; type scenario but I can't believe the Romans didn't take some sort of strategic victory even in defeat, at that time they were still too smart. Also also: if you want modern dickwaving how about planes? As I understand it the Eurofighter is unrivaled in a role:cost ratio?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:Speaking of Chechens, can somebody do a good write up about those nasty little wars? I've heard them mentioned a lot lately and they sound really hosed up. Like Yugoslavias break up messed up. Chechnya (and some neighboring provinces) has a Muslim majority, which causes problems considering they're part of a majority agnostic/atheist/Orthodox country, not to mention they have suffered abuse under Russian and Soviet rule. Both the Russians and Chechens have committed war crimes. More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Chechen_War#Origins and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 04:08
|
|
|
Algol Star posted:Also do you think a modern unequal war is possible to win from the side of the defenders (probably against the Americans) and how you would do this / how history's lessons are relevant? I've always been interested in how the smaller forces defended against the stronger army but can't see how you could do this in modern times without going the whole conquered but insurgency route. Not saying that this isn't effective for long term goals but is it possible to win in the short term? I don't have it in me to make a full effort post right now, but if you are into this, you should study up on the 2006 fight between Israel and Hezbollah. Israel came into Southern Lebanon after Hezbollah captured two IDF soldiers in a raid, with top of the line Merkava tanks and well-trained troops, and on the ground Hezbollah spanked them using RPGs, mortars, and especially prepared defenses like mines and bunkers (even bunkers with AC - a big deal in the desert!). Israel was able to close Lebanon's ports and airports with their Navy and Air Force, but Hezbollah didn't even contest them on those arenas, and didn't need to. Hezbollah had been building defenses since Israel left Southern Lebanon in 2000. With a defense in depth, Hezbollah was happy to give up ground in exchange for destroying Israeli men and material, and they had the room to get away with it. Set an ambush, retreat, set another ambush, repeat until the invader's casualties get too high and they get wet feet and find an excuse to claim victory and pull out. Hezbollah made use of their geographic depth, their decent quality equipment imported from Iran, and their connection to the locals to give a serious bloody nose to what was thought to be one of the top armies in the world. Along the way, the IDF kills some local Lebanese civilians, and you get good PR for the Lebanese from that. Hezbollah stayed below ground in their bunker and tunnel complexes, so Israeli airpower couldn't touch the actual fighters and spent their time bombing civilians instead. Israel claimed victory for PR purposes, but the field of battle was left in Hezbollah's control and Israel was embarrassed militarily. It's a great example of how a relatively low-tech force could beat a high-tech modern force and hold the field at the end of the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 09:07
|
|
|
Burning Beard posted:By late '44-45 there was just no time to train a pilot to fight against an American, something like less than 75 hours of flight time against nearly 300 hours. By that point in the war we could afford to train pilots; we had a surplus, the Japanese did not. I'm pretty sure Japan's ever-dwindling oil reserves were the main reason for the cuts in flight hours, not the lack of time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 13:20
|
|
|
gohuskies posted:Great Isreal V Hezbollah stuff Is there any articles or books you can link to me for some facts on this? I love for a bit more depth on the subject.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
Seconding this. I would love to know more
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 15:05
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Jamming equipment (unless I'm missing something more obvious). Here's the part of the film where this happens: 7:55 is a loving riot, it's straight out of a comedy film.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 15:41
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Not to sound like a fool then, but how did the Zeros kick so much rear end in the early war? In my opinion, when it first entered service the Zero was prohibitively the best fighter aircraft in the world. The main competition for that title at the time (summer of 1940) were the Spitfire I and the Bf-109E; the Zero was far more maneuverable in all axes than both, could climb roughly as fast, had a comparable armament, and had between 4 and 5 times the range. It was slower in level flight, but it could out-accelerate the Spitfire and had about the same level acceleration as the 109. In addition, the Zero was designed from the start to be a carrier-based aircraft, which makes its performance even more impressive. The problem with the Zero is that that the airframe wasn't really able to evolve like the Spitfire and 109's did. Since it was so small and light (and Japanese engines were so mediocre until 1944) there just wasn't a whole lot you could do to upgrade it without killing the performance. The Japanese made a major error continuing to try and wring the last bits of useful life out of the now-outclassed Zero when they could have been pouring all of their resources into building newer designs. Sidenote: the Ki-84, which was more or less the successor to the Zero, was one of the best designs anyone came up with during the war, but like everything else Japanese it suffered due to a lack of materiel. On crappy Japanese gas the thing was as good as the late model American planes (F4U-4, P-51H, etc); when it was tested with top quality American gasoline after the war its performance, at least in an air superiority role, was maybe the best of any non-jet of the whole war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 16:04
|
|
|
What was the absolute worst plane to see widespread use in WWII?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:30 |
|
|
P-39 Cobra
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2011 18:54
|
|