Tanks in urban fighting

Alright, so I’m in a debate about tanks fighting in urban areas.

My opinion:

Tanks are valuable support for infantry. When protected properly, Tanks provide excellent support firepower. They are vulnerable in a city, yes; however Infantry are increasingly vulnerable in a city environment as well.

His opinion:

Tanks should never enter cities. Shoulder-fired anti-tank weapons are enough firepower to destroy anything that may be impeding infantry in a timely fashion. Tanks loose all effectiveness in cities.

We're at a stalemate. I've given my sources, he has given his sources, but we both still refuse to budge. Since this is a marginally interesting debate, I’m going to ask him to bring it over here (since they really don't want to hear it where we're currently arguing.) I'm also interested in hearing what the people here have to say.

 

i agree with you. city's are rough to fight in and thats just the fact.
It is doubly important to not lead with tanks in citys but can work as mobile atg's.
In citys los are sharp and distances often short, simple atg's can be to slow to move and to unprotected to move with infantry round corners etc or even shortly after in some cases.

 

Germany was the first country to experience tank combat in cities (in the suburbs of Warsaw), and had heavy casualties. Since then, whenever tanks has been involved in urban combat, they have experienced heavy casualties.

There are several problems for tanks fighting in urban settings, the most prominent being the lack of possibility for maneuvre - especially for tanks with long guns.

Some Russian WWII tanks, most prominently the JS-2, had the advantage of a rearwards-facing machine gun, which made it less vulnerable to infantry sneaking up behind the tank, but it was still vulnerable to especially molotov cocktails thrown from buildings.

Entering a city with tanks is never a good idea, unless you absolutely need the fire support.

Christian

 

The argument started when I made the statement that “tanks suck in urban warfare”. This was after I was asked how the allies in the streets of Berlin handled a monster such as a Tiger.

My position on this topic is quite simple. I believe that within the confines of a city that Main Battle Tanks loose their effectiveness. The main reason for this? The advent of effective, cheap, shoulder launched AT weapons. In a battle field setting the smaller weapons are brought to bear vs. the frontal armor of Main Battle Tanks, and thus, do little against them, especially one such as the LeClerc, M1, or Challenger. But on the sides’, rear, and top armor, were these vehicles are weakest, these weapons become very effective, especially against the tops and rear of these vehicles. Due to the size of Main Battle tanks their ability to maneuver is greatly reduced and tanks are unable to produce their best armor facing against a coordinated attack with such weapons. Infantry support for tanks can be tied up with well coordinated fire arcs from ones opponent and the tank can at that point can be flanked with multiple teams (3 or more is not unreasonable) of RPG wielding antagonists. This frees up the antagonists armored assets to engage in decisive actions in more tank friendly environments. Tanks have done poor historically in such urban engagements such as Stalingrad, Grozny, The 6 day war, etc... The list of failures could fill an entire page were tanks face organized resistance in the confines of a city. You could easily substitute the RPG7 Heat round vs. M1 in the previous example to a bazooka vs. the top and rear armor of a Tiger.

There is no mythical field that surrounds a city that will not permit tanks to pass into them. I just believe that there are more cost-effective ways to bring firepower into such an engagement. Tanks are not in their element in the city and are not designed with such action in mind. This brings us to an interesting position now as the world is becoming more and more urbanized and tanks will find themselves in conflict inside cities. They will have no choice but to enter in some cases. Does this make them the best choice for pacification of a city? No. The current military thinking is to design smaller faster vehicles, such as the Striker, that can mount the same 120mm gun as a modern tank on a smaller more mobile platform with increased EW capabilities and new reactive armors. In short an Urban Combat Vehicle.

Anyway this is my position.
Cool board you have yourself here. BTW

 

The striker has its fair share of problems as the standard armor package can't even protect from .50 cal machine gun fire. The add-on package protects from this, but the armor is still a measly 14mm which cannot defend from RPGs even with the grating they have set up for Strikers. The striker is a poor example of this.

In any case, Tanks were and still are brought into cities to support infantry. That's how the tank was designed and that's how it works: Tanks and infantry are a team. The tank protects the infantry from small arms; the infantry protects the tank from anti-tank weapons. The battles around Cecina, the Marne River, Cologne, and Aachen, all prove the value of tanks in an urban setting.

I ask you, Dudemaestro: You believe that tanks have absolutely zero place even entering a city and should always avoid it while infantry goes in alone. Do you think yourself better qualified to make these calls than the generals who ultimately made these decisions?

As far as tanks being lost in cities: Yes, we know. City fighting was rough, it was rough on everyone. The same could be said of infantry, or do we honestly think that Infantry had an easier time in urban areas than anywhere else?

In a WWII scenario, which is what we're discussing, Infantry weapons will not dislodge dug-in or otherwise fortified positions such as an enforced building or a bunker in a timely fashion without placing the infantry at extreme risk. A tank, however, can simply eliminate it so the infantry can pass. Furthermore, an attacking force moving into a city with tanks/infantry working together to provide firepower to designated points of entry and kill zones will be at an extreme disadvantage if they lack tanks of their own.

 

Niether one of us are generals. If we were I would hope that we would have far less time on our hands to bitch over the internet. All I can go of of is what historacly has been the case. I have never argued the point that Tanks are not involved in city combat Dan. I have just stated that they do not perform well there. I do not know of any other way to explain it to you. I believe all avanues of aproach have been, at this point, utilized. They are out of their enviroment in cities and they are better used elsewere. Are there tactics that can help them in urban areas? Yes. Are tanks still better used in other operations? Yes. Your "dug in bunker" is a static defence and can be moved around by infantry and flanked and flamed/grenaded/bazookad even easier then a tank in a city and removed at the leasure by the more mobile infantry ground forces. This is why the fixed static defensive point is considerd a "monument to the stupidity of man."

If you, or anyone else, finds itself pointing to the cities of Iraq for help with your effectiveness of tanks vs. city arguments then you are looking at the wrong situation as the cities of Iraq are hardly subdued right now using current military doctrine. And final numbers of caualties in that country have not been tallied as fighting is over only in the mind of Dubbya. Why is it still a mess? We are unwilling to go door to door and due what must be done with infantry. It could be argued that we lack the manpower to conduct such an operation.

Would I send in tanks against a bunch of unorganized civilian resistance? Possibly. Would I send them against organized military resistance? No.

As far as the striker it is still a work in progress. I think the finished product will be just what is needed in urban enviroments. It all depends on the new "smart armor" tech.

 

I think that yes, tanks can be better used in open combat but so can modern infantry. The only type of millitry force that benifits from urban combat are gurrilas(iraq) and forces that can afford heavy losses while there opponent cant(stalingrad)

 

Tanks have taken high casualties in every urban area battle they ever took part in. This much is true, but then again, infantry has taken massive casualties as well in any urban battle.

A city is to be seen as any other type of terrain when combat is concerned: terrain has its avantages and disadvantages for the attacker and the defender in terms of tactical options, cover, movement, etcetera. As history and common sense show, cities are extremely difficult terrain, probably comparable to dense woods or mountain passes: tactical options are limited, cover is abundant, and movement virtually impossible except along predictable routes. This does not mean that any part of the combined forces modern armies have at their disposal should back down from this new type of terrain: rahter, methods and tactics should be devised to ensure that the doctrine of combined arms which has won so many wars can still be applied even in this difficult environment. I do not see how, but it is very clear why.

 

Didn't the USMC make good use of armour at Hue?

 

i think whilst it is difficult to bring tans into urban combat, it can be neccasary. E.g if yopu do not have an overwhelming force to flank and attack the bunker. Then there is no choice, as hand held weapons will only go so far. If the are's are cleared the tanks can safely be brought forward to bear there firepower on tough groups of eemies.
Whilst it is true they are vunerable that doesnt mean they are useless.
You just have to be careful and use them very patiently.

 

The initial German advance into Warsaw had inadequate infantry resources, so tanks were halted by a few well-placed AT guns. With adequate infantry support, tanks fare better, but urban warfare is always a 'meat grinder'.

 

Self-Deleted

 

It's not so cut and dry as a tank can/cannot fight effectively in a city. As mentioned before, designers have put some thought into combat situtations involving tanks in urban settings, but this alone does not help anything.

I look at it this way: Tanks are designed to support the infantry in open, rural areas. Infantry, in some respect, are designed, or atleast there for, to support the tanks in an urban setting.

So if the infantry do their job in the city (cleaning up resistance, clearing mines and boobytraps, etc), it is theoretically safe for the tank to enter. As a line of advance is created through the city, the tank can safely and efficently move to areas of resistance and work as an assualt gun.

Therefore, I feel it is very possible and even very effective for a tank to enter a city if steps are taken to ensure it is used properly, mainly in tandom with accompaning infantry. It's kind of the "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" thing.

 

I think tanks, like the Sturminfanteriegeschutz 33B, the Brummbär or the ISU 152 were quite useful in cities.