RE: [SG2] Cover Penetration Question for all you Armour Experts

Some support to the idea that you don't want berms:

http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/victory.html

In which an analysis of 73 Easting is performed and Biddle points out
several problems with the Iraqi berms.

First, the location of the berms gave away the location of the vehicles.
 Being the only terrain feature on an otherwise flat area makes it very
easy to pinpoint possible targets.  US procedure is to put the vehicles
in defilade (hull down or turret down) and remove the spoil.  When in a
turret down position, there is nothing for the enemy to target on and it
is much harder of them to estimate your position.

He also states that it was standard procedure to fire at any berm,
regardless of whether an Iraqi vehicle had been spotted or not.

Second, the berms were highly visible in a strategic sense, it was easy
to spot where the Iraqis had built up and therefore easier to plot
routes that avoided strong-points (although that turned out to be
unneccessary)  A tank in a turret down position can be covered with
camoflauge to make it more difficult to spot, or defilade positions can
be covered to simlulate an occupied position.  It's harder to hide a
tank sitting behind a berm.

Third, the material of the berms (loose packed sand) did not prove to be
a significant barrier to American shot. (Whether this is DU or not is
not listed).

Fourth, (my comment) a tank in a proper Turret-down/Hull-down position
can move from full cover, to partial cover to withdrawl, whereas a tank
using a berm is either full cover (not shooting) or shooting (no cover).

--Binhan

-----Original Message-----
From: John Atkinson [mailto:johnmatkinson@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 7:19 AM
To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: [SG2] Cover Penetration Question for all you Armour Experts

--- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you have any earthly idea how long that would
> > take??
> 
> You did not specify a time requirement.  If you're
> the Iraqi's and you've
> got the U.S. threatening to invade, you've got
> plenty of time while the U.S.
> builds up to invade.

Sure.  

They tried that.  You know what happened?  You were
paying attention when the US drove two corps around
their right flank, right?
 
> Most fortifications take time to build.  Look at
> Verdun, Metz, etc.  You
> plan these thing in advance.	Modern example, South
> Korea.

You're assuming that your enemy is stupid enough to
attack them head-on.  Not a good plan unless your
terrain is as restricted as South Korea.  And even
then, such prior planning allows your enemy to get
beautiful satellite imagery pinpointing down to a 10
digit grid exactally where each one of your spiffy
tanker graves are located.

You loose, when attack aviation or artillery paste
every one of your tanker graves at H-Hour. 
 
> > No, the way to create fighting positions for armor
> is
> > digging holes, not creating parapets.
> 
> Assuming the terrain you are in allows you the
> luxury of digging down
> instead of building up.  There are a lot of place in
> the world where digging
> down won't work.  Examples, most river delta's
> (including the one in Iraq),
> half of Florida, about a third of the Leningrad
> Oblast, the Pripet Marshes,
> etc, etc, etc.

When was the last time someone drove tanks into
marshes in the first place, much less planned a
deliberate defense around armored formations in
marshlands?

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance - Get real-time stock quotes