Air Defense for Armored Formations

[.pt]

I would like a little explanation from you guys.

Tanks, when they move, they move in platoon or company size, i think.
These are small autonomous units.
In western armies, regarding local air defense, are these units acompanied by AA tracked vehicles, like the Gepard, at all times, or do they move without any defense, besides that provided by SAM units, in the rear?
If so, how do they cope with atacks by enemy helicopters and aircraft?
Also, is there any site where i can find out about current doctrine for armored vehicles deployments and organic composition of units?
thanks in advance.
.pt

 

[kams]

You may want to look in in US OPFOR battle book.

From Chapter 1 of above, Section 13,

1-13 AIR DEFENSE TASK ORGANIZATION.

The OPFOR unit’s mission and location determines the amount of air defense coverage, regardless of what has been actually attached to that unit. As with artillery and antitank assets, the OPFOR allocates the majority of air defense units to support maneuver units conducting the main effort. For example, in general order of priority, the division air defense regiment provides air defense coverage to the division command post, main axis maneuver units, division artillery group, second echelon and minor axis units, and the logistics tail. Therefore, the first echelon of the main effort or a battalion operating as an FSE or advance guard’s coverage will be substantially different from a second echelon force. For example, the vast majority of brigade air defense assets are allocated to the first echelon, leaving the second echelon dependent upon protection provided by the division SAM regiment.

a. Deployment of Systems.

(1) SA-7/14/16/18.

A squad (one vehicle with three launcher teams) from the MIBN AD platoon is normally assigned to each MIC. It is usually deployed within 20-30 m of the company commander.

Brigade and divisional HQS have dedicated SA-7/14/16/18 squads for self-protection as do SA-6/8/15 batteries.

The OPFOR may use these systems to establish air defense ambushes or as roving units to cover gaps or less likely air avenues.

(2) 2S6/ZSU-23-4.

Normally employed in pairs with systems located within several hundred meters of each other.

If two pairs are employed together they are separated by 1000 to 2000 m.

A section or platoon normally supports advance guards and forward detachments.

In the assault, sections normally support first echelon battalions, moving directly behind the first echelon companies.

In the defense, sections again are used to support first echelon battalions. They are normally located within a battalion's defensive area.

These systems may also be used to establish air defense ambushes or as roving units to cover gaps or less likely air avenues.

(3) SA-9/13.

Provide area coverage to the brigade.

Normally operate as a platoon (four systems).

On the march, the platoon moves with the brigade main body.

Probable missions in the offense include protection of the brigade main CP and supporting artillery.

In the defense, the platoon locates in the brigade defensive area positioned where it can provide coverage of the brigade CP and artillery battalion/BRAG.

(4) SA-6/8/15.

Typical employment is to have one battery support each first echelon brigade with the remaining batteries providing area protection to the rest of the division.

 

[.pt]

Thank you Kams.
Very informative, but i believe this aplies to OPFOR, i.e, oposing force(s), for example former Warsaw pact countries, or Russian forces, since it refers mainly Russian AA/SAM systems such as sa-7 strella, SA-6, ZSU 23-4, etc etc.
I meant current western armies, such as US army, British army, and German and French army. Can you help there?
Regards.

.pt

 

[kams]

Thank you Kams.
I meant current western armies, such as US army, British army, and German and French army. Can you help there?
Regards.

.pt

US Army field manual FM 3-01.7 provides detailed info.

Here is the link

FM03-01.7

You may find FMs of Canadian and Australian forces online (not sure, I recall reading couple of them. Will try to find a link for you later).

Thats lot of reading . Enjoy.

 

[Waylander]

In Germany Gepards are directly attached to MechInf and Armored companies as well as all the other things you need for a combined arms unit.
They maneuver together with the tanks and IFVs and stay close to them.
Because the Gepard also has some AP-ammo onboard for its two 35mm guns some commanders also like to use them against enemy IFVs and light forces.

The crews say this is much more fun than AA-operations.

Our former Roland SAM system on Marder chassis was more stationary but was also able to follow the MechUnits due to the chassis.
Ozelot, a Stinger SAM system on Wiesel 2 chassis, is now performing this mission against low level intruders while stationary Patriot systems provide high and middle altitude defense.

Besides this our IFV and tank crews also train against helicopters.
The FCS of the Puma and the Leopard give them the ability to attack helicopters up to 3.000m with the 30mm of the Puma and up to 4.000m with the 120mm of the Leo.
If the Helicopter is spotted first it getd into real trouble.
The 30mm uses programmable automated fuse ammo which is very effective against Helicopters and the 120mm APFSDS of the Leo is lethal against Helicopters nearly unimportant were it hits the enemy.

 

[aaaditya]

i believe that the tungushka and the pantsyr systems are also excellent solution for the air defence of mechanised columns,though i believe that their gun caliber must be increased to 40mm (from 30mm) and firing rate should be increased to 10000 rounds per minute(from 6000 rounds per minute),while the range of the gun is retained ,the range of the missile should be increased to 15kms and a speed of atleast 3.75 mach.

 

[Big-E]

i believe that the tungushka and the pantsyr systems are also excellent solution for the air defence of mechanised columns,though i believe that their gun caliber must be increased to 40mm (from 30mm) and firing rate should be increased to 10000 rounds per minute(from 6000 rounds per minute),while the range of the gun is retained ,the range of the missile should be increased to 15kms and a speed of atleast 3.75 mach.

Lets get it over with and just give them lasers... zap zap. Russian weapon systems can't do everything, although that Tangushka is something.

 

[.pt]

i´ll post later..still digesting some parts of that Document Kams kindly pointed to me.
Tungushka not so bad, i believe. Perhaps US airforce/USnavy does not think of it as a credible threat to low flying aircraft??
.pt

 

[Big-E]

i´ll post later..still digesting some parts of that Document Kams kindly pointed to me.
Tungushka not so bad, i believe. Perhaps US airforce/USnavy does not think of it as a credible threat to low flying aircraft??
.pt

Doesn't bother us, we don't fly that low anyway. Only ones that have to worry about it are A-10s. With systems like that running around it's time to retire the hog and let the high flyers take care of it.

 

[Waylander]

Why should you use 40mm?
Two 30mm with 5000 s/m should be enough to make dead meat out of everything you hit with your salvo.
40mm would mean much less ammo which is not so good for a vehicle which relies on bringing as much metal into the air as fast as possible.

 

[Waylander]

Don't forget Helicopters
A well trained mechanized force supported by relatively modern AA-tanks could give attack helicopters a hell of a day.
They are, together with low flyers, the main target of those vehicles.
For sure you are dead meat if you have no air cover by Patriots, S-300, fighters, etc. against high movers.

 

[aaaditya]

Lets get it over with and just give them lasers... zap zap. Russian weapon systems can't do everything, although that Tangushka is something.

i believe that to achieve the same kind of destructive power and range as the tungushka gun cum missile system,the laser will need a very powerfull energy source ,which in turn will result in a high infra-red signature and hence make it vulnerable,also lasers are much more expensive than either gun or missile or a combo of both.

 

[aaaditya]

Why should you use 40mm?
Two 30mm with 5000 s/m should be enough to make dead meat out of everything you hit with your salvo.
40mm would mean much less ammo which is not so good for a vehicle which relies on bringing as much metal into the air as fast as possible.

the bofors 40mm gun has a firing rate of about 360-400 rounds per minute,it requires a burst of 10 40mm bofors 3p rounds or an equal number of oerlikon contraves 35mm rounds to destroy a low flying cruise missile or drone.

even though the firing rate would be less ,i believe the advantage of a larger caliber would be greater penetration power,longer range ,greater explosive power,more number of fragments and superior electronics,it would also result in more efficient use of ammunition.

 

[Big-E]

i believe that to achieve the same kind of destructive power and range as the tungushka gun cum missile system,the laser will need a very powerfull energy source ,which in turn will result in a high infra-red signature and hence make it vulnerable,also lasers are much more expensive than either gun or missile or a combo of both.

Like the IR sig of 10000 40mm rounds a minute plus missles that fly at mach 3.75 would be smaller... come on man

It would be simpiler to put the far out laser I'm talking about on there than what you suggested.

 

[Waylander]

But with much less ammo onboard.
And firing rate is still one of the most important things of AA-vehicles.

 

[eckherl]

i´ll post later..still digesting some parts of that Document Kams kindly pointed to me.
Tungushka not so bad, i believe. Perhaps US airforce/USnavy does not think of it as a credible threat to low flying aircraft??
.pt

That Tungushka (2S6) is one mean vehicle, Apache pilots hold it in high regards, does anyone know if any other countries have a interest in purchasing it from the Russians.

 

[Stimpy75]

i know that the Tunguska is in use by The Indian Army and that it also has been purchased in small numbers by Marocco. The UAE has 50 vehicles of the Pantsir-S1 system,which is in general a Tunguska like system based on a wheeled chassis,for further informations here is the link of the producer
http://www.shipunov.com/eng/zencom/panz.htm

 

[eckherl]

i know that the Tunguska is in use by The Indian Army and that it also has been purchased in small numbers by Marocco. The UAE has 50 vehicles of the Pantsir-S1 system,which is in general a Tunguska like system based on a wheeled chassis,for further informations here is the link of the producer
http://www.shipunov.com/eng/zencom/panz.htm

Thanks for the information.

 

[aaaditya]

That Tungushka (2S6) is one mean vehicle, Apache pilots hold it in high regards, does anyone know if any other countries have a interest in purchasing it from the Russians.

the pantsyr is clearly superior to the tungushka,though i believe in terms of mobility the tracked tungushka would be slightly ahead of the pantsyr.

 

[Waylander]

But mobility is an important thing if it comes to AA-vehicles working together with mech formations.
I would not wonder if the UAE use their pantsyrs rather stationary and only relocate them from one fire postition to another.