ANTI-TANK WEAPONS VS BUNKERS
COMBAT EXPERIENCE
Anti-tank weapons are designed primarily to defeat enemy armor. Recent combat actions have again proved anti-tank weapons are extremely effective against point targets such as bunkers and crew-served weapon positions.
Lesson Learned
Hand-held anti-tank weapons provide a mobile, flexible and effective direct fire weapon against enemy bunkers.
WW II JAPANESE BUNKERS IN THE PHILIPPINES
The Japanese were masters at fortified and well-camouflaged bunkers. U.S. infantry units often came upon these positions by accident. The jungle prevented effective air or artillery support. Only coordinated attacks by special infantry assault teams could clear out these positions. The troops of the 6th Infantry Division (The Sightseers) ran into Japanese bunkers during the campaign in the Philippines in January, 1945. The Japanese positions were well-sited in the Cabaruan Hills and seemed immune to air, artillery and even tanks.
ONE MAN, ONE BAZOOKA, NO BUNKERS
Lt. Harry Leonard of the 20th Infantry Regiment, attached to a special assault company, promptly led his bazooka team around to the flank of an enemy bunker. Firing against the bunker and its supporting positions, he managed to use his "personal artillery" to knock out two machine guns nests, several mortars and a 47mm field artillery piece. This punched a hole in the enemy defenses so that the assault teams could encircle other bunkers and crack open the enemy line. [7]
VIETNAM: LZ X-RAY 1ST CAVALRY
During the Ia Drang Valley campaign in Vietnam in November, 1965, the North Vietnamese Army launched a major assault against the 1st BN, 7th Cavalry of the 1st Cavalry Division. The Battalion had landed at LZ X-RAY and attempted to rescue a cut off platoon. 2LT Walter Marms' 2nd Platoon, B company, moved through the tall elephant grass towards the surrounding enemy. Suddenly the platoon was halted by heavy machine gun fire coming from a 5 ft high anthill 30 meters to their front. Exposing himself to get a better shot, Lt. Marms fired a 66mm round from his M72 LAW at the position. This silenced the machine gun long enough to allow him to pick up a grenade and use it to destroy the position. [8]
THE FIGHT FOR LANG VEI
During the fight for Lang Vei, a Special Forces Camp near Khe Sanh, a tank-led NVA force managed to occupy the camp after fierce fighting. Only a few Americans held out in the command post at the center of the compound. A small relief force from a nearby CIDG (Civilian Irregular Defense Group) camp tried to recapture Lang Vei and rescue those in the command post. Each assault was driven off by heavy fires from a ring of enemy-occupied bunkers which formerly had been a part of the camp defenses. The relief force leader, SFC Eugene Ashley, grabbed a 57mm recoilless rifle and put three high explosive rounds into the front apertures of each of the two bunkers holding up the advance. This allowed the relief force to penetrate through the bunker line into the center of the camp. Although the relief force was later driven out of the camp, the anti-tank guns destroying the bunkers had given them a fighting chance. [9]
Lesson Learned
Optically guided anti-tank missiles are very effective against a wide variety of point targets.
FALKLANDS
The Argentine defense on Mt. Harriet consisted of four company sized, 360 degree positions, well concealed among craggy boulders. Due to the open terrain, 42 Commando, Royal Marines chose to make a night attack. In the early part of the night four MILAN missile teams took up positions on the approaches to Mt. Harriet. The teams did not have night sights for the MILANs. The gun crews were able to engage Argentine machine gun positions by observing tracer fire, estimating the distance to the target, and firing the MILAN as the target was illuminated by artillery or mortars. The first missile fired at a machine gun position hit low, a second scored a direct hit at 1500 meters, passing through sandbags and earth filled drums. Another was launched with devastating effect against a machine gun position concealed in a cave. The cave measured 1.5 meters across at the entrance. In all, 15 MILAN missiles were fired by 42 Commando during the night attack, and 10 achieved direct hits. LTC Vaux of the Commandos admitted that it was a "pretty expensive way of doing it" since each missile cost $35,000. However, when the mission requires it, it is an effective option. [10]
References
For more information on employing anti-tank weapons against other targets, see references below.
FM 7-70, Light Infantry Platoon/Squad, Sep 86.
FM 7-71, Light Infantry Company, Aug 87.
FM 7-72, Light Infantry Battalion, Mar 87.
FM 90-1--1, An Infantry Man's Guide to Urban Combat, Sep 82. Appendix I gives a fair description of anti-armor employment against enemy positions.
FM 7-91, Tactical Employment of Anti-armor Platoons, Companies and Battalions.
Bottom Line
Anti-tank weapons can, depending on METT-T, be used against bunkers or high value targets to provide the light fighter with some much needed "clout."
Table
of Contents
Close
Combat
Military
Operations in Urban Terrain
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
