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.
Well they learned Japanese in the penal system so they may have had a criminal accent.
I remember the line and the context but I can’t place it for the life of me.
BOOM! (Tank main gun fires)
Tank commander: “Driver reverse and move out to alternate position!”
Driver: “Commander, we may have a problem. It’s not going into reverse.”
Tank commander: “Driver reverse and MOVE OUT!”
Driver: “Looks like a transmission problem. It’s not going into reverse.”
BOOM! (Counterbattery fire arrives)
I am hidden away in the turret on the right side of the tank. That particular day, I was filling in on the company commander’s tank has a temporary replacement gunner, until repairs on my tank were completed. It had run over a mine and blown off a couple of road wheel arms and road wheels.
NOBODY who spent time out in the bush stayed dry in Vietnam. You were just more or less wet on any particular day, especially during monsoon season!!!
I hear ya, brother. Alpha-4 was worse. Both C-2 and A-4 were well within range of NVA arty and rockets. We got quite a bit up there.
“” “” Let me get this straight, use tanks as sacrificial lambs in place of mobile arty to draw fire so you can use your arty to counter fire because you have crap sigint.”” “”
Maneuvering tanks are bad targets for indirect counter-battery fire no matter how quick the reaction time.
“How well could the U.S. military perform this?”
I am sure we can but it is not really important in a conflict with Russia. The side that is losing will go to tactical nukes and the other side will bring in their tactical nukes which will soon escalate to strategic nukes landing on Russian and American homeland. Russia nor America will ever go to war with each other in a head to head conflict. Neither side wants to die!
Forgot to add this. The GDP of Western Europe and America is about 30 times that of Russia. If our European Allies would pull their heads out of the socialistic asses we can crush Russia with ease via economics without firing one damn bullet. Trump understands this and Russia fears Trump not Hillary.
Self propelled artillery? Shoot and scoot? My goodness, whatever will they think of next. Glad we have the press to keep us abreast of the latest developments.
The Democrats are “all in” on this, too.
I channel surf through C-Span several times each day.
I cannot believe how many Clinton and Obama era executive appointees are giving anti-Russia briefings to the Democrat think tanks in D.C.
Already considered about losing satellites. Artillery now sources from satellite, high, medium (like AWACS) and low altitude aircraft and drones (some at unit level), with intent to use very high altitude systems (again drones), even low tech stuff like weather balloons for winds, long in use.
It is very holistic intelligence gathering.
There have been articles on FR about Russia decentralizing command and control for fifteen years. This is not new news.
It has been one of Putin’s primary reforms of the Russian Military, moving away from Soviet-era ideas.
The rebels used $79 Chinese mass marker drones/ kids toys connected to iPhones to great effect in the Ukrainian Civil War.
They proved to be much more effective and widely used than the $350,000 junk drones the Marines didn’t want, that were given to government troops.
Yeah. The article acts like we wouldn’t be able to see everything they are doing as they do it. Ridiculous.
I am hidden away in the turret on the right side of the tank. That particular day, I was filling in on the company commander’s tank has a temporary replacement gunner, until repairs on my tank were completed. It had run over a mine and blown off a couple of road wheel arms and road wheels.
NOBODY who spent time out in the bush stayed dry in Vietnam. You were just more or less wet on any particular day, especially during monsoon season!!!
We (and the free nations of that region) owe you and your brothers-in-arms a debt that we cannot fully repay. A leader in the region, a man Kissinger dubbed “the mayor of a middle-sized city”, was extremely grateful, although he let his actions, rather than mere words, do the talking:
http://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/mr-lee-told-americans-what-they-ought-to-do
Those were the first words that I ever heard him say. He went on to explain why a strong, self-confident America was essential to the balance of his region. He said Singapore could not survive in a world in which America, out of self-doubt, did not play its indispensable role.
(Unquote)
Nope need no A10 Warthogs.
Tank destruction is simple as a parachute and deadly.
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.