Re: Are tanks really able to knock down trees??
- From: Mikko Nahkola <mnahkola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 19:42:26 -0000
In article <1135860170.807845.58470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Mike wrote:
Short answer: it depends.
Long answer: tanks can and do knock down trees on a regular basis but
Actually, "knocking" down trees is something that they usually don't do.
AFAICT _pushing_ them down is preferable, most of the time, if the trees
are anything but small saplings.
there are a number of factors at work here: 1) The size, power, and
suspension of the tank (and I guarantee that no Stuart is going to
knock down a tree 1 meter in diameter.) 2) The unknown factor: that is,
what happens if the tree doesn't fall cleanly and the tank ends up
high centering on the partially fallen tree.
This is also why even when the trees wouldn't otherwise do anything but
slow the tank down, _long stumps_ are an obstacle. Leave stumps between
2 and 3 feet in length, and just about any tank will have plenty of
trouble with them.
A tree pushed or knocked down will tend to break off near the ground and
not leave a strong stump. Or at least, not a strong stump that you
couldn't keep pushing against ... see below. Except if pre-treated
with malice aforethought, which is an art in itself.
3) The track factor: even
on modern main battle tanks, it is easy to throw or break a track.
Fixing one in deep woods would be a nightmare.
Appropriate-sized stumps will do a lot of that too.
4) The cumulative
effect factor: in truly deep woods, each tree that a tank knocks down
is likely to cause some loss of momentum and is likely to cause some
entanglement with other trees. Forward progress creates a gradually
more impenetrable barrier. If the woods are more than a few hundred
meters deep momentum can gradually ground to a halt-then what?
In truly deep woods the trees aren't big enough to be run over at speed
anyway, so this only happens at a very specific stage of forest growth.
Small saplings only build up to a specific level of resistance.
5)
Last but surely not least, the vulnerability factor: with all of these
trees falling, it would be extremely dangerous to have any dismounted
infantry near the tanks and tanks operating in highly restricted
terrain without dismounts is an extremely bad idea, plus it would
restrict your ability to traverse the gun tube, so any response to
enemy fire will be limited at best.
This is actually a major problem - one of the best ways to make your
main gun unusable is to knock it hard enough against a tree trunk, from
any side (see next). Therefore the rule was to point it backwards when
doing this.
You should have the dismounted infantry at least a couple of
tree-lengths in front anyway. (And you only use the tank to clear the
trees if you don't have enough chainsaws or det-cord or whatever.)
knock down a few trees to get back on the tank trail. At the driver
gunned the tank forward into the first tree, the impact of the tank
sheared off a huge branch high in the tree which dropped down striking
the soldier standing in the loaders hatch. The impact pinned him
against the back of the hatch, breaking his back, and ultimately
paralyzing him.
Which kind of a tree was that, BTW? Ours (pine and spruce mostly)
typically break off mid-trunk when you do that. And in that case, the
whole upper half of the tree becomes a largish shape-stabilized
inertia- and gravity-guided projectile pointed towards the tank top ...
_Always_ close the hatches when doing that.
That's the reason why the trees are pushed slowly over rather than
knocked down at speed.
I recall from my days as an S-2 that during intelligence preparation of
the battlefield (IPB), part of terrain analysis is determining tree
density per square meter and diameter to determine whether an area is
passable. The formulas were published and involved very detailed
analysis and on the ground reconnaissance when possible.
Well, you'll need the ground reconnaisance for a lot of other stuff
anyway... won't you?
Any passage
that involves armored vehicles knocking down trees is a high risk
operation that should merit very careful consideration on the part of
the commander.
Second that.
--
Mikko Nahkola <mnahkola@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
#include <disclaimer.h>
#Not speaking for my employer. No warranty. YMMV.
.
- Next by Date: Re: Review Of Guns In Iraq
- Next by thread: Re: Review Of Guns In Iraq
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
