Does the OIF Thunder Run by 3 ID prove that tanks can fight in an urban environment & will do so in future conflicts?

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:03:15 -0500

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...

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 5:30 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:30:16 -0500

Phantom furry. Enough said.tanks are an outstanding communications platform. Along with a hundred other assets we bring to the fight.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 22 at 2015 5:47 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:47:15 -0500

I was not there but will convey my opinion.
1. Once the enemy is on the run or demoralized it is difficult for them to regroup.
2. Tanks provide the best ground armor, lethality, and speed.
3. Tanks mission is DESTROY.
4. The Iraqis were not prepared to defeat our tanks.
5. The Iraqis were overwhelmed.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 5:54 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:54:02 -0500

Let's not forget about the Infantry that was with them. Wasn't a pure tank fight as we know it.

A lot of the Run was also based off shock effect. What would you do if you seen a Co of tanks coming at ya with all the support at a very high rate of pissed offedness(yes new word..lol)

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2015 5:59 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:59:38 -0500

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.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Dec 22 at 2015 8:43 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 20:43:29 -0500

It was good and worked because there was infantry support. Armor in urban terrain will not, can not work if not supported. Good recon in front of the tanks is also a must and today's drones will make this task much safer for those involved.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Dec 22 at 2015 9:39 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Tue, 22 Dec 2015 21:39:22 -0500

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.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 1:10 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 01:10:09 -0500

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!

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 27 at 2015 4:19 PM

MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 27 Dec 2015 16:19:37 -0500

Its been a while since I was an Armor Officer, but I would say Tanks are very useful for certain things in an urban environment. Do you want to slow roll tanks for long periods of time through dense neighborhoods? No. Do you want to use them to quickly bypass dense neighborhoods using MSRs and decisively seize key terrain/objectives? Yes. As I recall, while the tanks were screaming down the major MSRs, mechanized infantry was setting up blocking positions and defending them to maintain the capability for the tanks and logistics to continue to use them unimpeded. The key is common sense applications of the assets you have. That is why so much of our maneuver doctrine and training now revolves around combined arms teams rather than strictly infantry, armor, or artillery.

Response by MAJ Tom Byrns made Jan 4 at 2016 5:00 PM

MAJ Tom Byrns — Mon, 04 Jan 2016 17:00:45 -0500

Like all things in life... it depends.
To directly answer your two questions, no and... sure, why not?

1. "prove that tanks can fight in an urban environment" NO. The 3ID thunder run didn't "prove" anything. It showed what a well trained and motivated Armored Task Force can do with an enemy focused mission and a liberal ROE, against a disorganized and ill-prepared enemy force. The term Task Force is key here, not just Armor. Armor is good at direct combat and destroying the enemy.

2. "will do so in future conflicts?" Sure, why not?
If you have the assets available, why not use them? Tanks may not be an ideal platform in an urban environment, but we improvise, adapt, and overcome. That's what your there for!
In my experience as a Tank Company Commander in Iraq (2003-2004), except for conducting a mounted breach of a minefield, we used our tanks in almost any scenario you can imagine, from "thunder run-esque" operations in Adamiya (Baghdad) and Karbala, to door-to-door clearing and searching, to static guard positions, check point operations, etc. We had tanks, so tanks we used, even if not ideal.

LT - I'm curious. Why do you keep referring to Russia in your above responses? I'm no "Think-tank Gray-Beard" or anything, but an urban conflict in Russia would seem to pose a very different set of variables.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2016 11:09 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 07 Jan 2016 11:09:20 -0500

This is neither contrary to doctrine nor is it a rare occurrence. Armor has been used in most of our urban fights over the last century. As a former member of 3-15 IN and there for the Runs, it was awesome to behold the firepower that held OBJs Larry, Moe, and Curley. Having an MPAT delivered to the base of a building removed that building as a source of incoming fire. The coax was a fully automatic sniper rifle/destroyer of white pickups toting guns. Few vehicles can withstand a 500lb IED like an Abrams and still get the occupants home to their families.
Once the maneuver slowed and patrols increased, then Abrams became less effective and Bradleys were used as 30 ton cop cars. Eventually, the disadvantages to using both overcame their value (collateral damage from tracks), presence of armor giving an impression that was not the intended effect, etc....
Modern aversion to urban armor usage stems from the lessons learned watching the Russians in Chechnya. That does not diminish armor's usefulness when its limitations are accounted for and its strengths maximized. I have very fond memories and the utmost respect for 1-64 AR, 4-64 AR, and the other tankers that I served alongside.