Some advocate the use of tanks but modern armor does not favor closed terrain. Armor without infantry support is subject to ambush by anti-tank weapons that are manned by enemy infantry.
As for those who advocate pure infantry against enemy infantry, there is no advantage to the US. Despite advanced light arms developments and training, infantry acting alone becomes slaughtered when the enemy has superior numbers. The solution must be combined arms. Armor and infantry supporting one another. Armor to give direct fire support and cover against light arms/RPGs and infantry to clear enemy strong points that contain anti-tank weapons.
The situation in Somalia which resulted in many deaths to US servicemen has raised many questions and presented many discoveries. Helicopter gun ships were unable to engage enemy targets b/c of non-combatants in the area and they were also vulnerable to RPG fire when flying low. Thus, when the soldiers of Task Force Ranger were trapped in one part of the city, extraction by Blackhawks was impossible.
Another way out was by ground. However, it was an impossible task for the men to fight their way back on foot against the somalis who greatly out numbered them. Added to the problem was the fact that they had wounded to carry back. Evasion on foot would have had a better chance for a small squad but not for a company of Rangers.
The only other means out other than walking would be to transport the men back with vehicles. However this also proved to be a difficult task as demonstrated by the fact that the two convoys of Hum-vees (short for M998 High-Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle aka. HMMWV or Hummer in civilian form) and trucks which tried to rescue the trapped soldiers were under constant ambush. The Hum-vee is a tough vehicle, even more so in its armored form. However, taking RPG hits is asking too much. Additionally, the Hum-vee had another difficult task to overcome. The somalis had established numerous roadblocks made out of whatever scrap was available and set them on fire.
What might have helped is a platoon of light tanks capable of maneuvering in the tight 3rd world streets. The ideal candidate being the US Army's Bradley M2A3 and M3A3 measuring 10'6" wide and 21'2" long. This armored infantry fighting vehicle (IFV) could rush in taking heavy fire from RPGs and break through barricades. Once on scene it would have been able provided a smoke screen, lay down suppressive fire, and dismount additional infantry to secure the area long enough to load the wounded on board and return them safely again through the gauntlet of light arms fire and RPGs. Remember that this was a 3rd world enemy that didn't have advanced anti-tank weapons capability. Had they been armed w/ the latest in anti-tank weaponry then the result might be different.
But even so, the Bradley appears well suited for urban fighting. The only drawback being that it is cumbersome to transport to every conflict that ignites at a moments notice around the world. Prepositioning helps but having the Bradley become more air-mobile transportable by cargo aircraft as small as a C-130 would ensure that it will be on hand when needed. My only other advice would be to add cameras for the driver so that he may see 360 degrees around the entire vehicle as to maneuever it w/ more ease in tight quarters. Also the addition of a heavier main gun w/ better increased elevation to take out enemy snipers positioned within buildings. Thus, thermal sights combined with a heavy main gun could knockout an enemy sniper despite the fact he may be hiding behind a concrete or brick wall fortified with sandbags. The heavier main gun must also have a higher cyclic rate of sustained fire to suppress the enemy.
I would strongly advise for improving the main gun in a way to defend the tank against the threat of enemy missiles in much the same manner as the Phalanx Close-In Weapons System (CIWS) does on modern US Navy ships. Destroying an anti-tank missile by shooting at it makes more sense than relying on the armor to absorb the impact. Admittedly there isn't much time to react to an in-bound missile, especially with the short distances of close urban fighting, unlike a ship at sea that has time to react. However, the ability of having a computer which would engage automatically by reacting to the detection of an in-bound threat, would greatly increase survivability. For example, the gunner may be focused on ground targets when all of a sudden the main gun independently responds to an incoming missile and responds according to the parameters of engagement. Thus it would swing, elevate and deliver accurate fire immediately.
Additionally, a bulldozer type tool placed on the front of the vehicle would add to its ability to remove obstacles such as roadblocks. Although the Bradley could just as easily climb over the obstacle, a bulldozer blade can remove the obstacle so that other troops and vehicles may follow unhindered. The bulldozer tool would also reduce the amount of debris that might trap itself in the Bradley's treads which could result in a thrown track. This could be an option to have on just one of a platoon of Bradleys.
The objective is to have a readily deployable Brigade sent anywhere in the world within 96 hours rather than 30 days. Thus she has to be delivered by air not by sea. The IAV won't be the last armored vehicle in theatre, but it will most likely be the first. For MOUT scenarios it would likely excel having the ability to carry troops within that can shoot from cover rather than using gun-ports like the Bradley IFV. Just imagine a moving pillbox with a maximum speed of 60mph and a range of 300 miles. I often observe conveys of Strykers on southbound I-5 traveling atleast 50mph. Many have recently been upgraded with surrounding grills that are designed to detonate or perhaps entangle RPG's before contact with the primary armor surface to lessen the force of the explosive.
Enter the Objective Individual Combat Weapon (aka OICW). A recent development in light arms technology by Heckler and Koch, the manufacturer of the reliable and accurate MP5 machine gun.
Many advocate against the implementation of a new standard issue rifle. They argue that the new rifle is expensive. They also say that the M-16A2 is satisfactory for the needs of the average US soldier.
My view is that as good as the M-16 is, it is time to advance our technology to give us an edge with superior firepower. The OICW has capabilities that exceed any light arm used by today's armies. Among its capabilities is the addition of a 20mm over-under grenade launcher.
Admittedly the M-16 has the ability to add a grenade launcher in its M-203 configuration, but the OICW adds so more. With the attached laser-range finder, the OICW rifleman/grenadier can accurately fire the 20mm over the top of a defilade enemy (ie. an enemy hiding in a foxhole, pit, etc.) and detonate the round at a user-selected range right above him. Thus, the limitation of line-of-sight firing would be overcome. The 20mm could also penetrate a building's walls and explode not on impact with the outer wall but instead have a delayed detonation so as to disperse within the room itself. The efficiency of the explosive is thereby increased by not having been wasted.
The fire control computer could also determine the range of an enemy to deliver standard NATO 5.56mm or 20mm rounds more accurately.
Thus, the old method of guessing range with the M-203 in combat is made obsolete and unnecessary. Most importantly, more rounds are not wasted on another old method, that of firing first then re-correcting.
The OICW could easily integrate with current supplies of US 5.56mm rounds and accommodate M-16 magazines. Once in service it may help save lives by increasing the effectiveness of one US soldier against numerous enemy soldiers armed w/ AKMs.
www.fas.org (Federation of American Scientists)
www.globalsecurity.org
