Posted on Dec 22, 2015
Does the OIF Thunder Run by 3 ID prove that tanks can fight in an urban environment & will do so in future conflicts?
12.5K
24
21
5
5
0
The Thunder Runs by 3 ID into Baghdad proved to be the decisive point of the Iraqi invasion. What was supposed to be a house to house fight into the heart of Baghdad by light infantry was achieved by a combined arms brigade in two days.
Traditional Army doctrine suggests that tanks are not to fight in urban environments because of their restrictions.
Do you think this kind of urban penetration by tanks is a rare occurrence? Or is it plausible that this type of maneuver and audacity using armor will be common in future warfare? After all, nothing quite says I'm here to dominate this terrain and infrastructure quite like a battalion of M1A2 Abrams...
Traditional Army doctrine suggests that tanks are not to fight in urban environments because of their restrictions.
Do you think this kind of urban penetration by tanks is a rare occurrence? Or is it plausible that this type of maneuver and audacity using armor will be common in future warfare? After all, nothing quite says I'm here to dominate this terrain and infrastructure quite like a battalion of M1A2 Abrams...
19A: Armor Officer
1802: Tank Officer
Tank Commander
Infantry
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
5
5
0
I think that it proves that armor can be effective if the enemy is completely incompetent and does not possess armor-penetrating weapons like EFPs or decent capability to drop roadblocks and take advantage of the canalizing effect.
It was a ballsy mission, to be sure. It caught the Iraqis completely off guard and put the lie to "Baghdad Bob's" claims that the Americans would never enter the city. But it was only audacity that allowed that to work.
It was a ballsy mission, to be sure. It caught the Iraqis completely off guard and put the lie to "Baghdad Bob's" claims that the Americans would never enter the city. But it was only audacity that allowed that to work.
(5)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
I think that is a fair assessment. It relied heavily on audacity and tempo. Could it work against the Russians? Maybe not to the same capacity, but it's worth discussing.
(0)
(0)
SFC Pete Kain
CPT(P) (Join to see) - Against the Russians? See Molotov Cocktail....once a tank stops moving it becomes a pillbox. If the tank has no Infantry support it's not terribly difficult to destroy. That's also why tanks do not like deploying in the heavy woods, to easy to throw a track and become the target.
(1)
(0)
CPT(P) (Join to see)
SFC Pete Kain I fully agree with the infantry support. I made this same point on a separate comment on this thread. So maybe the correct term would be combined arms thrust. The only issue then would be the decreased tempo. The armor can only move as fast as their infantry support. I think it's a topic worth more thought than the doctrine's black and white explanation (tanks = shaping operation in urban environment)
(1)
(0)
Tanks are excellent weapons for urban warfare if you are in total or near total warfare mode. It would be much easier to attack German cities in WWII in tanks than on foot or light skinned vehicles. What's also true is that tanks are not as useful for counter-insurgency and stability operations, which often happen in urban settings. So the question of whether tanks are good for urban warfare really depends on the mission and the ROE. If it comes to a full scale war, of course being in a tank is better than being on foot or in a jeep.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
I was in 3rd BDE and 269 Armor was well supported by 1/15 and 1/30th IN BNs which made it possible. Can't forget about 1/10 FA either. Rock of the Marne, Sledgehammer!
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google