Tank armament effectiveness vs infantry

[parsifal]

Hello parsifal,

Gentlemen, let's take it easy okay, please

Sometimes one has to see things in order to get a better picture. Right now I can't, but I will scan in a picture tomorrow of my friends AFV Marder 20mm cannon firing a incendiary high explosion shell at a target in a distance of 600m, and you will see what I mean. (Just try to remember it is a single shot at a 2 storey building.

Regards
Kruska


Hi Kruska

I have never discouraged reasoned and respectful discourse about any subject, but I will not tolerate disrespect and straight up lies from anyone. soren has been caught repeatedly doing this, not just to me, but to a lot of people. And he gets away with it a lot.

Anyway, to clarify my position. I never said that buildings offer complete cover, I never even said that artillery could not bring buildings down in a single hit. But the evidence that buildings were used for cover in WWII is just there. it cant be denied, because it happened, used by both sides actually. So why would they do that....

The evidence that I have presented shows that buildings can withstand a fair amount of punishment, and that guns of tank calibre (WWII) were not automatically endowed with the ability to demolish buildings in the manner described. If possible, no doubt the Infantry would stay out of a building until it was reduced to rubble, but this luxury was not always available. In a close combat situation, whre Spoviet artillery concentrations could be as high as an artillery piece every 10 yards, being inside a building might be prefereble to moving outsaide of it, particuarly if you are not allowed to retreat.

How many rounds of your 20 mm canaon were needed to bring this building of yours down. What was the nature of its construction? Was it sandbagged? There are a lot of questions to consider, before writing off a building as not being suitable for defence. The evidence of this can be found in the urban fighting that the US Army is embroiled in in Iraq at the moment (eg Fallujah). Whilst their artillery can destroy buildings, the eenmy still chooses to fight from those buildings, and does it very effectively. always the force that is forced to move into the street is going to take heavier casualties than that which remains hidden and at least somewhat protected by the buildings, particaulalry if the defenders can get into the sewers and the like

 

[Kruska]

Hello Parsifal,

Unfortunately I can't open these U-tube spot, but to keep the record straight IIRC nobody mentioned "light" artillery so far.
I have forwarded the effect of a 20mm incendiary high explosive projectile of today's Bundeswehr, and as I mentioned before I will scan in the photo by tomorrow.

But let me ask you one question please if you are able to answer that, since you might have not been in an infantry unit. Does the Australian Army actually tell/recommend or teach its infantry guys to seek cover in houses? Or do they prepare trenches and bunker emplacements within urban areas with normal buildings, not taking the national library or other major buildings into account.

Australian houses are similar to American houses, wood and sometimes a basement and some stone walls around the chimney or 1st m of the ground floor with bricks. So protection wise not comparable with European houses at all. And as mentioned before by me, even a normal European house is not considered to provide cover for infantry at all in expectation of artillery bombardment or tanks and AFV assault.

If not to avoid the so called collateral damage, the US forces could blast away every single house in Iraq and go home in the next 2 month.

In regards to the 2nd WW, the infantry numbers were far larger then today and inproportionate to fighting vehicles, making it an infantry house to house battle, once assault guns or tanks came up both sides left the buildings as fast as possible or submerged into the basement and then later to come up again.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Kurfürst]

The fact that European NATO armies teach the infantry to get the hell out of houses makes sense to me.

The Soviets, unlike NATO, issued HE shells to their tank units - and I would not want to be in a house when a 125mm HE shells goes off in it, for sure!

 

[Soren]

I have never discouraged reasoned and respectful discourse about any subject, but I will not tolerate disrespect and straight up lies from anyone. soren has been caught repeatedly doing this, not just to me, but to a lot of people. And he gets away with it a lot.

What ?! When have I ever lied to anyone on here ?? NEVER!

The only one who's a liar here is you Parsifal, and you've just been caught doing it AGAIN!

 

[Kruska]

No one here is a liar okay, some of us have their own opinions and we want to discuss it in a reasonable manner okay!!!! Not all arguments or says are straight so what!!!!

Regards
Kruska

 

[Soren]

I just can't stand it when some guy falsely accuses anyone of lying while at the same time lying himself, Parsifal is an expert at this.

Anyway looking forward to the pictures Kruska, I've seen what a burst of 30mm shells will do to a small brick building, and it aint pretty.

 

[parsifal]

Unfortunately I can't open these U-tube spot, but to keep the record straight IIRC nobody mentioned "light" artillery so far.
I have forwarded the effect of a 20mm incendiary high explosive projectile of today's Bundeswehr, and as I mentioned before I will scan in the photo by tomorrow.

Pity that you cant open the link. It is not conclusive, but it does show buildings being hit by artillery, and standing up to the punishment quite well. It also shows the kill zone of grenades to be approximately 5 metres, and that 76mm artillery creates z crater of about 1 metre width and half a metre deep.

Looking forward to the scanned amaterial that you have

But let me ask you one question please if you are able to answer that, since you might have not been in an infantry unit. Does the Australian Army actually tell/recommend or teach its infantry guys to seek cover in houses? Or do they prepare trenches and bunker emplacements within urban areas with normal buildings, not taking the national library or other major buildings into account.


Dont know, am not an Infantryman, or ex-Infantryman. I can find out. I would be surprised if they do, for the reasons that you point out. However neither is that my point. What was intimated here was that buildings could be taken out by tank shells (ie generally 75mm or less) firring HE. It was not stated, but the intimation was also that Infantry did not occupay buildings for protection purposes. Historical evidence says that the uits of both sides did, and further the force that attacked those ensconced in the buildings would take hevier casualties than those defending inside the buildings. The Russians in 1945 suffered over 400000 casualties, a big part of those losses was because the germans were hiding inside the buildings and picking off the advancing Russians, despite the most fearful artillery bombardment.

There is clear evidence that shells of 75 mm or below are not generally powerful enough to take out a building in a single hit, and that is the focus of this whole thread


Australian houses are similar to American houses, wood and sometimes a basement and some stone walls around the chimney or 1st m of the ground floor with bricks. So protection wise not comparable with European houses at all. And as mentioned before by me, even a normal European house is not considered to provide cover for infantry at all in expectation of artillery bombardment or tanks and AFV assault.

No Australian Houses are usually Brick or masonary of some description. There are virutally no timber houses being built anymore.

Rember the p0arameters of the discussion. Can normal Tank armament (generally 75 mm or less) take out a building in a single hit. no, it cant (generally). Wgainst a sustained bombardment i think it would be a different story



If not to avoid the so called collateral damage, the US forces could blast away every single house in Iraq and go home in the next 2 month.

It would take longer than two months to destroy every building in Iraq. IOraq is a country of about 20 millions, and was once an affluent nation. There are an awful lot of buildings to destroy, if you assume a typical occupancy rate of 2.5 persons per dwelling, there are at least 5 million dwellings alone to destroy, and that does not even count the commercial, agricultural, industrial and goivernemt buildings of their ciies. The Americans are in iraq in basically Coprps strength, which gives them, very roughly, acces to about 500 artillery pieces. If we assume 5 hits per building, and there are , say 10 million buildings, it is going to take 50 million shells to destroy all the buildings, and that is going to take your 500 guns 100000 rounds each to complete the job. Given that on average, a standard artillery piece has an EFC of about 500, that means your artillery park is going to be worn out 200 times before completing the task. I dont exactly know how long it would take to effectively fire off 100000 rounds from a single gun, but it would propbably be in the order of years rather than months

 

[parsifal]

No one here is a liar okay, some of us have their own opinions and we want to discuss it in a reasonable manner okay!!!! Not all arguments or says are straight so what

Dont get involved Kruska. you are a nice bloke. The moderators will arrive soon and will sort this out I am sure. i dont want anyone else to be involved in this. You are right though, so for everyone elses sake I will back off from this particualr strand of the debate

 

[Kruska]

Come on Parsifal, you should know what I mean. The US forces could take out a typical Iraqi house with a single shot from a Bradley, Striker, Abrahms or whatever. (Not to mention airstrikes) It is understood that this takeout is referring to militants occupying urban areas and as such houses or buildings.
No one will just start to shoot up all buildings and houses randomly in any country.

Regards
Kruska

 

[Soren]

As for the Youtube vids, they don't support any of what Parsifal has said.

 

[Soren]

but the intimation was also that Infantry did not occupay buildings for protection purposes

That is yet again not true. Neither me nor Kruska ever as much as implied that infantry didn't use buildings for cover, we infact said the exact opposite, but it depends on the situation. In smallarms firefights buildings are used all the time, however this makes you very vulnerable to attack from artillery tanks. Hence why soldiers are taught NOT to seek cover inside buildings if artillery starts raining down shells on you or tanks show up. Only when tanks unwisely venture inside dense urban areas is it recommended to fight them from surrounding buildings as it is now too close to be effective. Otherwise stay behind the buildings, NOT in them. That means DON'T fortify yourself inside a building if a tank is around, as the tank can turn it into rubble with a single shot.

 

[renrich]

According to John Keegan, in "Six Armies in Normandy," some of the old stone farmhouses in Normandy were put in use by both sides as fortresses and were practically impregnable, except of course to naval or heavy artillery gunfire. Keegan is perhaps the most imminent military historian in the world. Actually I believe the M1s in Iraq have two MGs on top of the turret. The problem with tanks is(at least in the ones I have been in) that it is hard to see much of anything unless one sticks his head up out of the turret. As far as engaging infantry with an MG on the turret, you may remember Audie Murphy slaughtering German infantry with a 50 MG, standing on the tank outside the turret of the burning tank.

 

[Soren]

In smallarms firefights, yes, against artillery or tanks, NO.

A 75mm HE shell to the side of a stone farmhouse like those in France and you've got yourself a nice big hole, with probably half the house going down.

A decent sized French stone farmhouse:

 

[Soren]

Here's what 2.5 kg of TNT will do to a car:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpYu4HLiXFc

 

[Soren]

Leopard 2 vs Minibus

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-9JoF5o5B4

 

[parsifal]

The dispute involves the effectiveness of 75 mm HE armament or less that one might find on a typical WWII AFV.

You have decided to refute the subject material of the videos, again (and as usual) without any supporting material. AND we have STILL not seen any evidence to support the position youo have taken. Displaying videos of cars being demolished by explosives, or MBTs hitting a bus are completely irrelevant to the issue, either because of the calibre of the weapon, or the the placement of the charges is incomparable and lastly because the amount of energy needed to destroy a vehicle is far less than that required to destroy a building.

The videos I posted show buildings being hit by 76 mm artillery shells and not collapsing. there is vision of grenades being thrown, and then of them exploded. The grenades are exploding with a very limited lethal radius, perhaps 5 metres, though as the US TM says the casualty radius is approximatelt 10 metres. Finally there is vision of 76mm shells hitting the ground and exploding, with an effective shell hole of about 1 metre by 0.5 metres.

A 75 mm shell has an explosive charge or 2.2-2.8 kg, and less if SAP or AP. If it is HE, the historical evidence does not support the notion that the shell is all that effective at taking out buildings. This has to be the main reason that the germans felt it necessary to develop a heavier siege train, of which the Sturmtiger is an example.

On the german side, the threat of the large number of allied artillery pieces ranged against them would, in my opinion, be a factor in deciding not to enter buildings.

However, the object of this argument is NOT whether buildings offer protection against artillery or not. It WAS about whether 75 mm armed tanks or less could knock out buildings with a single hit, or whether Infantry was safer inside of buildings or not. I did not say at any stage whether they (buildings) offered complete protection. Never said that, and never implied it either

 

[parsifal]

Come on Parsifal, you should know what I mean. The US forces could take out a typical Iraqi house with a single shot from a Bradley, Striker, Abrahms or whatever. (Not to mention airstrikes) It is understood that this takeout is referring to militants occupying urban areas and as such houses or buildings.
No one will just start to shoot up all buildings and houses randomly in any country.


This is all completely off topic, and has nothing at all to do with the issue under debate. Destroying buildings by airstrike is not relevant to whether a pzkpfw III with a 50mm gun can knock out a house with a single shot.

I did know what you meant, but you strayed so far off topic that It would only be fair to allow me similar liberties. The issue is this (repeated) was HE ammunition as fitted to AFVs of WWII vintage (accepted as generally 75 mm or less) likely to knock over a building in a single hit.

A supplementary issue I am prepared to debate is whether buildings offer protection to Infantry during barrage fire (ie not direct, or guided) as compared to Infantry that is un-entrenched and out in the open. In other words, the Infantry is being subjected to a standard box barrage, would it be safer inside a building(s) or in the open?

 

[Soren]

The videos I posted show buildings being hit by 76 mm artillery shells and not collapsing.

And where exactly in the vids does this happen ??

 

[Juha]

Hits at least from naval 88mm, buildings still standing today. I have always admired the accuracy of German gunners when they fired at Borgströmin tupakkatehdas, the tall building at right. And also the guts of the Finnish workers who kept on firing even if German coastal battleship Beowulf and maybe one DD fired at them from almost point blank range. Or so the story was told to me many years ago. I'm sorry for the poor quality of the picture.

Juha

 

[parsifal]

Soren

The Videos show one or more examples of the following:

1) Buildings being hit by artillery and not falling over
2) Buildings that have been hit and have not fallen over.
3) The explosive radius of grenades and artillery

One or more of these observations can be made at the following points

Oder Niesse video
Minutes 1.0, 1:04, 1:05, 1:30, 1:34, 3:59, 4:13, 4:34, 4:46, 6:00

Battle For berlin Video
1:11, 1:21, 1-57, 3-07, 2-50, 3-17, 4-10, 4-20, 4-44, 4-50, 5-05, 5-41, 5-56, 6-04, 7-02, 7-06, 7-15, 7-19

There are also frames that do show buildings completely demolished, or in such a state that if people had been in them they would probably have been injured or killed. However, this is not the issue you are trying to refute. you are trying to say that shells from AFVs equipped with armament of 75 mm or smaller will generally destroy a building in a single hit. You are also refuting the US Training Manual as to the lethal range of the M-67 grenade. You may be hinting that a 75 mm shell has a lethal range of around 50 metres, but this is unclear