"Tanks crossing Barbed wire" Topic

Its difficult to find real data on the effects on tanks of crossing barbed wire. Our best anecdotal evidence is that it needs to be done at a relatively slow speed and even then there is some chance of the tank becomming stuck due to entanglerment of wire in the drive system. Does anybody have any information on this? Note while it would also be possible to put Anti-Tank mines under the wire, this issue is outside the scope of this thread.

Interesting discussion here: link

In some rule sets you have to make a bog check to proceed. In Ark of fire you have to pass a TAC (morale check) to make it through obstacle.

Thanks Bill,
Grossman, we already have something in the Rules (Maneouver Group) but as its in a 10 year update we are looking at checking some fundamental assumptions are still reasonable.

realistically, single strand stuff, no problem, coils of concertina wire, maybe, but wire at high tension will be whipping everywhere as it snaps, and eventually someone has to try and remove it from the suspension…

Usually something only tried once, then never again.

There's barbed wire and there's also razor wire of course…

In 1988 I seen a leopard 1 tangled as it travelled at speed through at 808 wire combination with aprons, the vehicle came to a dead stop within 30 metres as the entangled wire popped the tracks off the sprocket

Cheers
Matt

I remember seeing a photo of an M5 Stuart light tank with a ball of snarled barbed wire in its tracks that was nearly as big as the tank.

link

Even a hasty laying of a roll of concertina can spell trouble for any vehicle that drives over it. Might not stop a tank, but at some point the crew is going to have to try and remove it. I've seen it wrap up in and around the drive sprocket.

And it is not limited just to barbed/razor wire. When I was in Armor Officer Basic course at Fort Knox, we spent almost an hour trying to unwind simple commo wire (2-strand copper in a plastic sheath) from one of our drive sprockets. Finally had to get a motor mechanic to bring down a blow torch and melt the damn stuff off the sprocket. It didn't effect our maneuverability at that time but I imagine enough would have.

As far as barbed/razor wire, as a former tanker I would be very, very hesitant trying to drive through any significant width of that sort of wire obstacle.

Jim

ochoin Thanks for the link.

Folks its its clearly a big issue. It looks like the magnitude of the problem may be a function of how much wire. Perhaps in Issue 2 I need to note that the wire we represent is by no means much and that a really big multilevel entanglement would be impractical to pass without engineering support or a specialist wire cutter like a flail. Do we have a modern day flail tank?

So what about this for a definition? I need to keep it simple as its just a definition for use in the rules.

10.2.15.1 Wire

This can be set up by engineers in long coils of barbed or razor wire in the open or as low wire designed to trip up infantry hidden in long grass or in woods.

Low wire and single coils of wire can be traversed only by tracked vehicles and clasess as a difficult obstacle. More severe entanglements such as rolls of wire piled on top of each other are impassable without engineering assistance to clear it.

Infantry need to cut the wire to pass through it. There are alternatives for small amounts of wire but treat the delay cutting equivalent to the other alternatives.

Soviet/Russian army has a lot of various engineering machines, but nothing designed specifically for destroying barbed wire. A couple of manuals I've found mentioning hooking the wire with tanks or BMP.
When I was in the army we were sometimes still using "hard" phone lines, so we were deploying kilometers of SS or copper wire. Sometimes the tanks were passing somewhere where they were not expected and destroying a couple of dozens meters of cable…I was hoping they had as much trouble removing it from the tracks as I had restoring the line ;)
PS the cable wasn't affecting their mobility. It will be nice to see the criminals on the place of the crime, but it never happened.

If you like really crunchy rules I would have three "levels" of wire.

1) Single coil. As you mention, it is a difficult obstacle, tracked vehicles only. Infantry can cut their way through but it takes time (one full turn?)

2) "Medium." Impassable to infantry. Tracked vehicles may attempt to cross, treat as difficult obstacle but with a chance of being stuck in.

3) Engineers only.

Those sound like pretty good rules XCrisy. Without being too complex but a modicum of reality.

Bottom line stay from concertina/barb wire …

Even parachute lines were enough to stop armoured vehicles, let alone steel wire.

Great question, but I can only assume very rarely did it become an issue. It would not take a genius to come up with a cross between a Cullen Hedgerow device and a plough (Ideally installed back to front!) to simply flatten the wire and to allow the tank to cross without picking up any entanglements in its suspension.

Did not seem to arise in WWI as the Little Willie had its suspension covered by the side plates.

one reason you see grapples in the Equipment list of unit.

one runs up and throws hook onto wire and with a lot of men or machine you pull it. this also sets off some of the infantry mines.

Low wire and single coils of wire can be traversed only by tracked vehicles and clasess as a difficult obstacle. More severe entanglements such as rolls of wire piled on top of each other are impassable without engineering assistance to clear it.

The word "classes" threw me at first -- had to read that sentence 2 or 3 times. I suggest "is classed" would be preferable.

Was concertina wired used in WW2? if so, by whom?

donlowry,
yes very early on see
link

With pre-combat artillery barrages, the idea of barbwire without holes in it would be rare.

As Col Cambell stated we had as much problem at Fort Hood cutting commo wire out of tracks ans axles. . far more common in training than barb wire.

Short answer : If an AFV tries to cross barbwire/concertina/razor wire … a Dangerous Terrain Test must be taken.
On a 1d6 = 4+ the AFV gets stuck. Next turn roll again on a 1d6 = 4+ it is freed. Maybe even modify the die roll for heavier AFVs.

Tanglefoot wire. I've run into this a number of times. When in 1 foot of grass or brush you can't see it and if you trip and fall into it you're screwed.

Wolfhag

I'm slightly baffled by the inability of modern tanks to cross wire, as that was the primary reason tanks were invented. The wire entanglements on the Hindenburg line were 100m deep and 1m high, yet mysteriously tanks were able to cross these and leave passable routes for the infantry too. Admittedly a Mark IV moved at walking pace, but even so…

I agree that wire should be classified by density or some things just don't make any sense.

Also the drive components/running gear of early tanks were pretty thoroughly covered, so not much opportunity for wire to get tangles in amongst it.

Exactly what I said earlier. The lozenge shaped British tank, especially, ran on very small wheels almost totally enclosed in the side plates. The tracks were wide flat plates and the low slung belly of the tank flattened the wire posts too.

I'm slightly baffled by the inability of modern tanks to cross wire, as that was the primary reason tanks were invented.

Of course modern tanks & barbwire/concertina are "different" than those of WWI[and WWII]. E.g. as uglyfatbloke & deadhead mentioned.

From a mechanical standpoint the tracks of WWI AFVs are also different than modern. Less "high tech". But as with many things in WWI, they were prone to break or be thrown. Replacing track is an less than "enjoyable" event …

Also ColCampbell and RudyNelson noted as well, both of them are "modern" Vets as I. As I said both AFVs and Infantry avoid wire obstacles[or all obstacles !] if at all possible.

In all warfare from WWI on as Ruby noted prep barrages were used to remove some of that "pesty" wire. To make the ground easier to cross, etc. Bangalores Torpedoes were also used to remove wire. We trained with them even back in the '80s. Don't know if they still are in use?

And as Wolf pointed out tanglefoot just sucks !

I dunno if bangalores are still in use, the US Army built a man-portable MICLIC system called the APOBS ( link ).

And there is still the full-size M58 MICLIC ( link ) in service, as well. My friend in the Army (now a Major stuck in DC, poor bastard) got blown up by his own MICLIC in A-stan. He hasn't said why it went boom on him, but I'm rather amazed he lived. An M58 MICLIC has nearly a ton of explosives (1750lbs of C4 and however much rocket fuel there is), and his Stryker was towing the MICLIC trailer when it went up.

But MICLICs are very unsubtle, bangalores can be sneakily deployed and detonated later.

I know about the MICLIC. I've heard it good for clearing streets in an urban area too. Used in places like Iraq and A'stan.

Short answer : If an AFV tries to cross barbwire/concertina/razor wire … a Dangerous Terrain Test must be taken.
On a 1d6 = 4+ the AFV gets stuck. Next turn roll again on a 1d6 = 4+ it is freed. Maybe even modify the die roll for heavier AFVs.

Wire doesn't stop AFVs dead. It's not like you run over wire and slam to a halt.

Instead, it gets tangled up in the suspension and can work its way into the seals in the final drive. Once that happens it can shred those seals, causing the oil to drain out – and if you keep driving, eventually the final will seize up.

Maybe something like you propose (a 50/50 chance of getting wire snagged in the suspension) followed by "if you get wire in the suspension you can move for 2d6 turns, then break down – unless the crew cuts the wire free which will take 1d6 turns" or something like that.

Source: I was a USMC armor crewman.

Yes, that is true … but my "chart" there was just a broad generalization … As you know we can't simulate all situations/events. And if we try it becomes too ungainly to play … but we can try to come close. Complexity vs. playability vs. a modicum of reality …

Also you may have Dangerous Terrain Tests(DDTs) based on terrain/obstacle types vs. vehicle and/or Infantry types.

And those DDTs may be modified if the AFV has e.g. a mine plow, etc. Or the Inf are CBT ENG, etc.

I agree totally with a USMC Crewman. As being former Mech Grunt with M113s and frequently attached to M60/M1IP MBT units.