Posted on 03/17/2018 4:41:28 PM PDT by BBell
Russia has unveiled a devious new battlefield tactic: use tanks as decoys in order to hunt down enemy artillery batteries.
It's a bait-and-switch con job that relies on relies on Russian tanks, drones, artillery—and an opponent that is just a tad gullible.
The technique works like this, according to Russia's Sputnik News: When facing an enemy that has artillery, Russia will attempt to locate the enemy batteries and destroy them through counterbattery fire. The problem, which dates back to the eighteenth century, is that the enemy batteries will attempt to remain concealed.
So how to lure them out? Russia intends to do it by having its tanks pretend to be artillery pieces. Normally, tanks use direct fire, in which they have a line of sight to the target. But on occasion, they have been used as artillery. During the Korean War—because the terrain was too rocky for armor to maneuver—the United States inclined tanks on ramps and had them fire indirectly with high, arcing shots that passed over hills and hit targets on the other side.
Presumably Russia will do something similar—but only as a ruse. The idea is that the enemy will think the Russian tanks are vulnerable artillery pieces and reply with counterbattery fire.
By the time enemy artillery fires, the tanks will be gone from the target zone and drones will be overhead. "Immediately after firing, the tanks leave their position in order to avoid enemy fire," explained Sputnik News. "As soon as the enemy fires in retaliation, Orlan drones pinpoint the enemy's location and transmit it to the tanks and allied artillery. The allied artillery opens fire immediately and the tanks, which posed as artillery earlier, appear out of nowhere to finish what remains of the enemy positions."
The technique was used during recent exercises near the Russian city of Voronezh. The tank/drone/artillery combo recently struck targets as far as eight miles away.
Significantly, Sputnik News also noted that "the interaction between various forces is streamlined and is conducted by bypassing the headquarters, which makes reaction time faster." That may raise a few eyebrows given that the Russian and Soviet military have a reputation for centralized control compared to Western armies. But the new tank/artillery technique is further evidence that the Russian military is continuing to move toward the decentralized, fast-paced style required for twenty-first-century warfare.
But will the trick work? The tactic presupposes that the enemy will not be able to distinguish between tanks and artillery: however, a sophisticated adversary like the United States, which has numerous drones and sensors of its own, might spot the difference. Russian tanks will have to ensure that they are detected, but leave themselves enough time to vacate the area before a smart bomb lands on them. Russian tanks would not need to fire as accurately as regular artillery, but they might have to carry special ammunition for indirect fire.
The U.S. Army did not respond to TNI's queries about Russian tactics or possible American responses by press time. But Christopher Wilbeck, a recently retired U.S. Army armor colonel, thinks the Russian approach is interesting:
They are using tanks to engage targets in Non Line of Sight engagements as part of the overall maneuver plan. I doubt they are doing precision NLOS engagements—which would be a big deal. But, it sounds like they’re linking sensor to shooter—UAVs to tanks—and then using the mobility of the tanks to displace. And only them are they using traditional cannon fire artillery in the counter-counterbattery fires, again linking sensors and shooters—UAV to artillery and to tanks—all the while maneuvering on the objective with the tanks that fired the first rounds.
Wilbeck seemed surprised that the Russians were willing to embrace such a flexible option:
[The tactic] is very easy to describe but it would also be very difficult to execute, and pushing the execution down to the lower levels would be a big leap, especially for a traditionally centralized military. Bottom line is that they are describing combined arms maneuver using mission command [a flexible goal-oriented system]. Deliberately using tanks in the indirect fire mode to facilitate maneuver, and fire and movement is new. I think previous historical examples of tanks in the indirect fire mode were due to exigencies or limitations on the use of armor.
How well could the U.S. military perform this? Wilbeck says the while the U.S. Army is theoretically capable of doing this, he hasn't seen it done in a long time. "I haven’t seen indirect fire firing tables since I was on an M-60 tank. Not to mention the tank rounds needed to do it – HEAT and APFSDS are not indirect fire rounds."
Michael Peck, a frequent contributor to TNI, is a defense and historical writer based in Oregon. His work has appeared in Foreign Policy, WarIsBoring and many other fine publications. He can be found on Twitter and Facebook.
Seriously, whats with all the rporting on every thing that goes on with the Russians. This is stuff straight out of the cold war, like Russian spy ships and planes, and really is not worth reporting unless someone has an agenda to keep the Russians on our minds as the biggest boogie man of them all. The ChiComs are more threatening.
I guess since those wily Russians are always up to something they must be preparing for war.sarc
To be realistic Ivan is probably more worried about China and Iran than us.
the neocons have to keep us scared and fearful
hence these silly articles
LOL. Because almost all our artillery isn’t self propelled. Shoot and scoot is standard.
The Chinese have been eyeing Siberia for decades and the Russians know it. Lots of resources there that could truly make China an independent country. Much like the Japanese lashed out before and during WWII because of their lack of raw materials, the Chinese are feeling the same.
You have to wonder what the tank crews think of their new role.
Air superiority. No drones, no problem.
US counter battery fire is not just generations ahead of anyone else, but it is insanely deadly. It uses any number of *correlated* intelligence gathering from satellite on down to ground, and within seconds can target every *possible* target on the entire battlefield.
Their biggest potential problem is running out of shells.
Fake news.
Tanks are easily destroyed. There are no General Patton battles anymore. It took half an hour to destroy all Iraqi tanks.
Haha I’m taking that...:)
The US has used the shoot and scoot method using self propelled artillery for decades. Radar controlled counter battery fire was used quite well in the 60’s. Ivan needs to get with the program.
This is fairly standard coverage. NI has hired writers who do equipment and tactical comparisons all the time. Russia isn’t the main adversary, but it is an adversary. It covets, at the very least, the territory of the former Warsaw Pact, in addition to that of the former Soviet Union. It would be nice if Trump could convert Putin into an ally, but the odds are small unless he’s willing to hand over all the territory the Russians want. Upon which the question would be what the next Russian demand would be.
The Chinese are the main event, but we can have more than one adversary at a time. It would be nice to have the Russians on our side against the Chinese, but just as the West was unable to get Italy on its side against Germany prior to WWII, it’s possible, and I’d say likely, that Russia will be China’s version of Germany’s Italian or Japanese ally in the next war to come. A more ancient analogue would be to Russia’s role as a Mongol vassal many centuries ago - with Russian armies acting as the Mongol Empire’s auxiliaries. (The knowledge the Russians acquired of Mongol equipment, strategy and tactics was used later to rid themselves of the Mongol yoke).
We had Marines doing time in Japanese jails. The Marines there all spoke perfect Japanese. Weird trick to learn it.
What? Don’t the Russians have self-propelled arty? Using yanks in an SP role is wasting the tank asset and using it as an inferior artilley system. Wasteful and stupid — unless you have no SP artillery worth the name.
This is all neocon scare tactics. I’m convinced someone wants something to start between us and the Russians.
Over half with A-10 Warthogs. Yet the @$$#0l3$ in the DOD keep wanting to retire them because they're not "sexy" enough.
Libtards and their scary Russian paranoia is pure bunk. There are those who want nothing more than a protracted war with Russia. Those people are insane.
“” “” Russia has unveiled a devious new battlefield tactic: use tanks as decoys in order to hunt down enemy artillery batteries.
It’s a bait-and-switch con job that relies on relies on Russian tanks, drones, artillery—and an opponent that is just a tad gullible.”” “”
That’s one strange take on this.
The point of exercise is that the rebels in East Ukraine got to use some cheap drones for artillery correction in their civil war. Normally indirect artillery fire is super inaccurate requiring hundreds of rounds to hit a specific target. Their tactics of using drones to adjust targeting real-time allowed to increase accuracy like ten-fold.
For obvious reasons tanks aren’t usually used for indirect fire because their ammo load is not sufficient to hit a target this way.
Actually borrowing the rebel tactic the Russians are overcoming a mentioned above limitation significantly increasing combat effectiveness of a tank. Combining with a counter-battery radar it also allows to employ tanks for counter-battery tasks which is novel too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.