"RPGs and armour" Topic

Any thoughts or observations on the effectiveness of RPGs against M113s and M48s? I want to fine-tune our 'field stripped' home-brewed version of Bolt Action for a big game at the Edinburgh Claymore show in August, so any advice would be very welcome.

The RPG-7 would be able to penetrate against either vehicle given a good solid hit.
Using WW2 tanks vs Panzerfaust principles, they would cause damage more than kills,causing crew casualties quite often.If ammunition is hit an explosion could result. Basically 1 hit might result in a vehicle kill, 2 or more would result in a kill.
That would be my take anyway.

Thanks Herkybird. Were RPG 7s pretty much the standard issue by 1970-ish or were there still a lot of earlier models around?

The RPG-7 replaced the RPG-2 in 1961. So in my games the RPG7 is the only model available.

In my rules a "hit" results in a roll on a damage table. You can immobilize the thing, kill it outright, take out a main gun etc. Obviously my rules assume a relatively small number of vehicles.

Sadly the RPG was and remains very effective against most armor. Especially the M113 … And even if the RPG couldn't penetrate an AFV's/MBT's armor, it certain could blow off a track/road wheel.

Yes, the M48, M41, etc., were vulnerable as well. Today the US made a TUSK kit for the M1 to defend against weapons such as the RPG's HEAT warhead. And "Turkey Cage" armor for Strykers, etc. The RPGs were/are prevalent in the Mid East and A'stan.

Here is some good info for M-113's in VN. Especially note the use of chain link fence for protection.
PDF link

I think the RPG-7 would be overkill on an M-113 and it might penetrate both sides. About 75% of the M-113 losses in VN were to mines.

Wolfhag

Yes, using the Chain Link fence when halted for a long period of time, e.g. NDF, was good fieldcraft/TTP. And in Iraq, etc., it was still used by some I have heard. If deployed to a combat zone I would have used that for my M113 equipped Mech Company, '87-'89.

About 75% losses of M113s in VN [sadly!] makes sense. Especially it being an insurgency for the most part. And in jungle terrain. Something we learn from that war. Was to sandbag the deck inside the troop compartment, the front and top of our M113s and some Cargo Trucks. In the ROK along the DMZ, '84-'85.

We also would generally ride on top of the M113. Even with sandbags on the inside deck. If you were inside of the M113, and hit a mine/booby trap, etc., you still could get wounded or killed …

The Marines did the same thing with the LVTP-5 Amtrack too. The fuel storage was under the floor so they put sandbags on the floor and rode on top.

Wolfhag

As ever, TMP provides a fine supply of info. As some of you may know I (occasionally try to) do some fairly serious historiography stuff as well as playing with toy soldiers. If any of you has served in combat Ill always be interested to hear/read any observations you'd be prepared to share.

"We also would generally ride on top of the M113. Even with sandbags on the inside deck. If you were inside of the M113, and hit a mine/booby trap, etc., you still could get wounded or killed …"

Which defeats the purpose of having an APC …

Of course, against an opponent with plentiful artillery, everyone quickly learns to stay inside.

At least if I'm riding on top I don't have to walk!

Do recall seeing a photo a long time ago in some book of an M113 hit by an RPG.

Next to the hole, someone had drawn a picture of Charlie Brown saying 'Good Grief'

A lot of the external stuff could negate, reduce, and/or deflect the RPG's molten jet, e.g.: driving lights and mounts for them, metal attachment mounts/handrails on the sides, smoke dischargers, any external kit being carried by the troops, spare road wheels, etc., etc..

Not sure a penetration would really knock the vehicle out permanently, unless you hit a critical point internally, fuel tank, or engine.

Obviously, it would definitely cause casualties though, and most likely a bailout, or temporary halt while the crew sorted out injuries/dead, and the status of the vehicle's operability.

The big worry would be when/if another RPG would hit next.

Which defeats the purpose of having an APC …
Of course, against an opponent with plentiful artillery, everyone quickly learns to stay inside.

No .. again based on terrain and situation. Once you think you may take fire or you do you may get inside. Otherwise being inside an M113 [or as Wolf mentioned an Amph Track] even with sand bags. And you hit a mine, etc., … well as I said … you could be WIA or KIA … But if e.g. your PL, CO, etc. orders you to stay inside … well that may or may not be a good decision. happens! You adapt to the situation …

At least if I'm riding on top I don't have to walk!

Yep and as I said we'd do the same on the rear deck of M60 MBTs …

Do recall seeing a photo a long time ago in some book of an M113 hit by an RPG.

Yes, I have seen that an others as bad.
You dismount and spread out if you can if you are at a halt. Regardless that you are riding in a APC. Like the M113.

A lot of the external stuff could negate, reduce, and/or deflect the RPG's molten jet, e.g.: driving lights and mounts for them, metal attachment mounts/handrails on the sides, smoke dischargers, any external kit being carried by the troops, spare road wheels, etc., etc..

Yes, I read even a sleeping bag, stopped an RPG from penetrating an M1 MBT in Iraq. And that that is another reason Reactive Armor and Turkey Cages were developed and used.

I think the whole idea of an APC was to function as a "Battle Taxi" or when exploiting the enemy while giving protection to small arms and artillery fragments. Tanks were supposed to protect them.

In VN things were different and change needed to be made as they could not be used for their main mission. However, they did provide heavier firepower and 81mm mortars.

For good video footage of M-113's in VN on Youtube search, "11 acr vietnam".

Wolfhag

I think the whole idea of an APC was to function as a "Battle Taxi" or when exploiting the enemy while giving protection to small arms and artillery fragments. Tanks were supposed to protect them.

Yes, that is the way we were taught and trained …

In VN things were different and change needed to be made as they could not be used for their main mission. However, they did provide heavier firepower and 81mm mortars.

Exactly … again terrain & situation … E.g. fighting conventional forces in Europe vs. insurgents/light Infantry forces in the jungle …

Much obliged to you all! You are very generouys with your time.
Thinking about C&C for Armoured Cavalry units…how did the tanks relate to the M113s in close country? Did the platoon commander exercise direct control over one or more tanks as a team with his infantry? Or did the tanks essentially fight their own battle alongside the infantry? I suppose what I'm really asking is – in a multi-player wargame setting – would it make more sense for each US player to have a platoon (say) of M113s and a tank or two or would it make better sense to have one player command the tank platoon?

Cross Country movement is based on speed and terrain considering the crossing abilities of each vehicle type. I.e. if the M113s and Tanks are to move together as a unit. So basically you determine your speeds and mobility as required for both type vehicles. As we know an MBT is heavier, etc. than an APC, etc.

However, as with all Ldrs'/Cdrs' decisions, the tanks & APCs may breakdown into two smaller elements, i.e. Sections. Again, based on terrain, situation and the PL or CO's orders …

The PL of the ACAV unit controls all elements under his command. E.g. Like when Mech and Armor cross-attach, the cross attached Plt(s) are under the Co. Cdr's control. But with the ACAV the Tanks & APCs are in the same organic unit.

For gaming purposes the PL commands all elements of his unit. He may detach e.g. the M113s under the PL SGT's leadership as a sub-unit, i.e. Section. E.g. to move the Tanks into a Support by Fire Position, etc. To cover the M113s movement, etc.

So for gaming the entire CAV Plt only has one player …

Or did the tanks essentially fight their own battle alongside the infantry?

Generally we fight Combined Arms. But in many cases I didn't get MBTs attached to my Mech Co. And vis versa, but it depends on how Higher HQ wants to Task Organize. And as always based on terrain & situation. E.g. when I was in the 101 in the Panamanian Jungles were never had any AFVs cross-attached to us.

However, in the desert of the NTC, e.g. at one point my Mech Co and another was cross attached to the Tank Bn. And 2 Tank Cos were cross-attached to the Inf Bns where the Mech Cos. came from.

So the Tank Bn was a Balanced Armored TF :

2 Mech Plts

2 Tank Plts

In West Germany, the Bde Cdr decided to have a Tank Hvy TF with my Mech Co. attached to the Tank Bn. And the Tank Bn kept 3 of it's MBT Cos. In turn my Mech Bn became a Mech Hvy TF with 3 Mech Cos and 1 cross attached Tank Co.

Many thanks Legion 4. The only Vietnam-usage diagram I've seen had a platoon of 5 tanks to two platoons of infantry, is that the case? If so, a player force of 1 platoon of infantry and two tanks be valid? Obviously allocation of assets would depend on circumstances, but I m just looking for a workable general proposition that can provide a good game experience without mangling the history.

Don't forget flamethrower and bulldozer tanks.

The Marines did have a small detachment of M-113 they used for HQ and logistics delivery.

Wolfhag

We don't have any bulldozer or flamer models. I'm limited to a couple of PT 76s and my wife has 9 M113s (2 mortar carriers) and 6 M48s from Corgi; she also has quite a raft of helicopters. We're going to run a big game at the Edinburgh 'Claymore' (rather appropriate title I suppose) show in August; probably about 8 players, but we will provide all the kit – we mostly (if not always) do so for big games.

Sounds cool!

I don't think the flamethrower tanks look any different.

If the M-48's are not supported by infantry, hang a Claymore on each side of the turret that can be command detonated from the inside. Leave the AP rounds at home stock up on HEAT and Beehive ammo.

Good luck,
Wolfhag

Thanks to you all! The flamethrower sounds lie an excellent idea; I may give each player a platoon in M113s, two M48s and allocate one M48 as a flamethrower to a company commander player along with mortars and responsibility for airstrikes/arty. Still not decided exactly how the Air Cav plt commanders will be arranged; possibly something similar with their coy. commander taking charge of the 2 cobras and casualty extraction.

Many thanks Legion 4. The only Vietnam-usage diagram I've seen had a platoon of 5 tanks to two platoons of infantry, is that the case? If so, a player force of 1 platoon of infantry and two tanks be valid? Obviously allocation of assets would depend on circumstances, but I m just looking for a workable general proposition that can provide a good game experience without mangling the history.

Yes, and as I said, units task organize all the time. Our Armored Cav unit with the Mech Bde, I was with,'86-'90, ran Plts of 2 M60s & 2-3 M113s, IIRC. Again based on terrain & situation. And as important what is actually available/on hand. Even if a units does not suffer combat losses. There is always mechanical breakdowns, etc.

And as Wolf pointed out the M113 had a flamethrower version, the M132 called a "Zippo". link And of course dozer tanks in many armored units.

Cheers. I was aware of, but had forgotten about Zippos! Might just go mith one of M48s representing a M67; there does n;t seem to be a whole lot of difference to a standard M48 asnmd we can just live with it anyway!
Can't thank you all enough for your advice; hopefully this will help me construct a better game.

Glad to help … And yes, there was a version of the M48 called a Zippo as well.

M67 "Zippo": M48 armed with a flamethrower inside a dummy model of the main gun with a fake muzzle brake. Named after a popular brand of cigarette lighter.

link

In armored Cav troops, the tank sections work with the ACAVs. The job of the ACAVs was to find and fix the enemy, or just as importantly, verify the absence of the enemy. The tanks provide over watch and use fire and maneuver to allow the scouts to develop the situation or disengage as appropriate based on the mission.

The scouts had, and still have, a tendency to go gunfighter when they encounter the enemy and frequently got in over their heads. The tanks gave them the opportunity to break contact, or the tanks could use direct fire to develop the situation to a favorable conclusion, i.e. destroy the enemy.

The cavalry has always had a tendency to get very aggressive when encountering the enemy due to their training and elan, and they frequently have to be bailed out by regular forces, even if they won't admit it.

Then again, to quote an unknown civil war infantryman, "Whoever saw a dead Cavalryman?

Who indeed?

Scoutjock +1

Just a quick update on RPG's in Vietnam -
The B40 (RPG-2) was around from the beginning.
The RPG-7 first appeared in VN in 1967.

B

Yes I had heard that, IIRC the B40 was from the PRC …

Also we talked a little bit about Gun Trucks here … TMP link

Guys..you're a veritable trove of information!

If you are going to be doing VN you HAVE to use gun trucks:
YouTube link

There were some that even had a quad 50 mounted on it.

Wolfhag

For two EXCELLENT essays on the development and history of Vietnam gun trucks, go here –

"Circle the Wagons – The History of US Army Convoy Security –
PDF link

and here -

"Convoy Ambush Case Studies" – PDF link

These document include enough "dirt-level" detail of various ambush engagements (such as Highway 19 through the Mang Yang Pass to Pleiku) to generate some very good scenarios.

No lie, GI.

Footnote – even 7.62mm mini-guns could be found aboard US guntrucks.

B

I just so happens that…SWMBO has several trucks. She does n't have the Corgi gun truck model, but I'm pretty sure we can rustle up some MGs to stick on the others. For this project it kind of depends how many players we have – getting people to commit is – as ever – like herding cats; 'I'd love to play; I'll let you know the morning of the game…' kind of stuff.

When I was going thru ROTC cadet training at Ft. Lewis, WA in '78. The 9ID stationed there had Quad .50s mounted on trailers towed by cargo trucks. Forget if they were Deuce & Halves or 5 Tons …

Bit late…
I've done tons of research on VN, and my pops and uncle (who were both there) and their friends are treasure troves of info. Uncle was in USMC tanks in 67 and 69, where we went from gunner to TC in 2 months (for both a gun and flame tank). He has told me that an M48 could take a couple of RPG-7 (B-41 rocket) hits and continue to fight, even if it couldn't move. He lost a gunner from a hit to the front mantlet, and they kept fighting. The main danger was from the initial burn through jet, as the M48s in VN wasn't prone to spalling from RPG hits like later versions with layered armor. RPG-2 (B-40) did very little damage to M48s, but could destroy an M113 or LVT5P.

Unlike in WW2, there was no place to bail out and run to, so you stayed and fought. Most serious damage to M48s was from mines. Usual combat damage was ruined vision blocks, shot of antennas (apparently this happened a lot) and tore up tracks.

MOGAS engined M48s tended to catch fire (early in the war) but the diesel ones didn't have that problem.
The .50 cal in the TC cupola was mounted sideways and jammed constantly, so the TCs went with a "sky mount" which put them in the open air, increasing visibility but also making them vulnerable.

US Army doctrine in VN for pure armor was for a 5 tank platoon, divied up into a 3 tank and 2 tank section. USMC also had 5 tank platoons but tended to "penny packet" the tanks out to infantry ops on a mission basis, or just run a trio of tanks on a mission and leave 2 guarding a patrol base or installation.

Armored Cav used 2 tanks and 3-6 M113 in platoon.

Good info from those that were there. And as I said, our Armored Cav unit with the Mech Bde, I was with,'86-'90, ran Plts of 2 M60s & 2-3 M113s.