We7det_el_qetal
New Member
Did the introduction of land-based heavy ATGM platforms like Mokopa and Hermis (comparable to the Hellfire) make the MBT obsolete?
ATGM Vs Tank
- Thread starter We7det_el_qetal
- Start date
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Not really. These missiles undoubtedly possess the ability to destroy a tank. But then, so do many other weapon systems. British Challenger 11 tanks in Iraq in 2003, were observed to repeatedly take hits from ATGW of various sorts and were able to continue "fighting through". Weapon systems of these sort simply mean coimmaders have to employ their tanks more intelligently. The best way is within a combined arms force. Tanks due to their inherent size and power tend to draw fire. Whilst the tanks are engaged (remember you might take one out, but you yourself have to be able to withstand the fire that will come from the tanks themselves, tanks never {or should never} work alone) your other forces will also be attacking the position...
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
let me rephrase my question 
the afore mentioned ATGMs have the capability to take a tank with a single hit on the frontal arch from 10 Km ( Mokopa ) 15 Km ( Hermis ) distance, so how does that affect the future battlefield.
the afore mentioned ATGMs have the capability to take a tank with a single hit on the frontal arch from 10 Km ( Mokopa ) 15 Km ( Hermis ) distance, so how does that affect the future battlefield.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
we7 is it alright if I call you that?
These are my thoughts on your rephrased question.
The Mokopa missile you are referring to is (as best I can tell) a helicopter launched anti-armour missile that appears to have very similar capabilities to the Hellfire missile. The Mokopa missile was designed in South Africa by Denel and (according to the manufacturer) only comes in 2 varieties, a semi--active laser guided version and a millimetric wave (MMV) version. It has a range in excess of 8.5klm's and this is what the manufacturer has to say about it:
"Mokopa is a long-range, precision-guided, anti-armour missile that utilizes the semi-active laser guidance concept. Its high-performance, large-calibre tandem warhead will destroy any foreseen armour threat."
Obtained from: http://www.kentron.co.za/Home.asp?Page=antiarmer
I doubt from the information publicly available about the Mokopa missile that it will have much greater effect on the battlefield than any other similar weapon system in it's class. These include: TOW, HOT, Hellfire and Trigate anti-armour missiles. This class as you can see is a fairly strongly contested area and most of these missile systems have been around for a long time.
The Mokopa seems to be a capable weapon, but has not (as far as I can tell) achieved any great international sale. It is used by the South Africans on their Rooivalk attack helicopters and is offered for sale with this helicopter, but has yet to achieve any other significant sales.
The capabilities of the Mokopa system ( as publicly stated) are not significantly greater than any other similar weapon system and is really only notable in that the missile system was developed solely by South Africa.
I've searched for a while, but I've been unable to find a single piece of information in relation to a Hermis anti-tank missile. Who manufactures it? Cause Google doesn't know...
These are my thoughts on your rephrased question.
The Mokopa missile you are referring to is (as best I can tell) a helicopter launched anti-armour missile that appears to have very similar capabilities to the Hellfire missile. The Mokopa missile was designed in South Africa by Denel and (according to the manufacturer) only comes in 2 varieties, a semi--active laser guided version and a millimetric wave (MMV) version. It has a range in excess of 8.5klm's and this is what the manufacturer has to say about it:
"Mokopa is a long-range, precision-guided, anti-armour missile that utilizes the semi-active laser guidance concept. Its high-performance, large-calibre tandem warhead will destroy any foreseen armour threat."
Obtained from: http://www.kentron.co.za/Home.asp?Page=antiarmer
I doubt from the information publicly available about the Mokopa missile that it will have much greater effect on the battlefield than any other similar weapon system in it's class. These include: TOW, HOT, Hellfire and Trigate anti-armour missiles. This class as you can see is a fairly strongly contested area and most of these missile systems have been around for a long time.
The Mokopa seems to be a capable weapon, but has not (as far as I can tell) achieved any great international sale. It is used by the South Africans on their Rooivalk attack helicopters and is offered for sale with this helicopter, but has yet to achieve any other significant sales.
The capabilities of the Mokopa system ( as publicly stated) are not significantly greater than any other similar weapon system and is really only notable in that the missile system was developed solely by South Africa.
I've searched for a while, but I've been unable to find a single piece of information in relation to a Hermis anti-tank missile. Who manufactures it? Cause Google doesn't know...
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
The two missiles do need laser terminal guidance, but it can be done from 7 Km ( thanks A D i didn't know why the laser designators max range was 7 Km )
a Jordanian IFV was fitted with a platform to fire Mokopas, it was displayed in one of the former IDEX expos but sadly i don't remember which
so what does modern tanks got up their sleeve in a theatre heavly protected by cheap state of the art SAMs which denies them their air superiority and with a considerable sum of long range MLRS like the Chinese A-100 or the Russian Smerch.
)a Jordanian IFV was fitted with a platform to fire Mokopas, it was displayed in one of the former IDEX expos but sadly i don't remember which
so what does modern tanks got up their sleeve in a theatre heavly protected by cheap state of the art SAMs which denies them their air superiority and with a considerable sum of long range MLRS like the Chinese A-100 or the Russian Smerch.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The ability to maneuvre rapidly about the battlespace, the ability to take hits and keep fighting, more firepower than any other single platform on the battlefield... MLRS is not a threat to an MBT unless you have specific anti-armour rounds. Normal bomblet ammunition is usually not sufficient to destroy a tank.
You've got to remember that tanks don't work alone, or they will be destroyed. The way to success on the battlefield is through "combined arms" teams. This means infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, engineers and supporting elements all work together to achieve a particular goal. A solitary tank is vulnerable to all sorts of threats, from a large hole in the ground, to infantry portable anti-armour weapons, other tanks and other ATGW's, anti-armour mines etc.
A force comprising, tanks, IFV's, infantry, supporting artillery, supporting aviation and engineering assets is a tough nut to crack and needs to be attacked by a similar force if you wish to defeat it.
Individual platforms or weapon systems don't amount to much on their own, regardless of their capabilities. It's what can be achieved by your entire force that matters.
You've got to remember that tanks don't work alone, or they will be destroyed. The way to success on the battlefield is through "combined arms" teams. This means infantry, armour, artillery, aviation, engineers and supporting elements all work together to achieve a particular goal. A solitary tank is vulnerable to all sorts of threats, from a large hole in the ground, to infantry portable anti-armour weapons, other tanks and other ATGW's, anti-armour mines etc.
A force comprising, tanks, IFV's, infantry, supporting artillery, supporting aviation and engineering assets is a tough nut to crack and needs to be attacked by a similar force if you wish to defeat it.
Individual platforms or weapon systems don't amount to much on their own, regardless of their capabilities. It's what can be achieved by your entire force that matters.
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #8
Actually i was talking about a force using a combined arms doctrine
1- ATGMs
2- Smerch with Kitolov-2M
3- S-400 nad S-300
4- G6 with Krasnopol-M
1- ATGMs
2- Smerch with Kitolov-2M
3- S-400 nad S-300
4- G6 with Krasnopol-M
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Well as a former crew commander of an APC I KNOW what I would do, (turn around and find a simpler battlefield to fight on...)
Seriously though I'm not sure what you're asking. What is the situation? What is the nature of the terrain we're fighting on? What forces do I have at MY disposal? What forces do you possess (other than a few equipment types)? Why are we fighting? What do I intend to gain, and what do you hope to achieve?
How far am I, or are you deployed from our home bases? What are the rules of engagement? Is this a high intensity warfighting conflict or is it a peace-making/keeping operation, where the insurgents just happen to be extremely well equipped? Who are my allies if any? Who are yours? What is your logistical situation? What is mine?
Unfortunately to answer what can a tank do in a given situation, you have to be able to answer all those questions and more. Naming a couple of equipment types and asking what a tank can do is useless...
Seriously though I'm not sure what you're asking. What is the situation? What is the nature of the terrain we're fighting on? What forces do I have at MY disposal? What forces do you possess (other than a few equipment types)? Why are we fighting? What do I intend to gain, and what do you hope to achieve?
How far am I, or are you deployed from our home bases? What are the rules of engagement? Is this a high intensity warfighting conflict or is it a peace-making/keeping operation, where the insurgents just happen to be extremely well equipped? Who are my allies if any? Who are yours? What is your logistical situation? What is mine?
Unfortunately to answer what can a tank do in a given situation, you have to be able to answer all those questions and more. Naming a couple of equipment types and asking what a tank can do is useless...
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #10
Im world war II the russians employed the most extensive defense in depth known to man during operatin Citadel to break the germain combined arms offensive,
I'm asking this:
Is the Air land battle doctrine obsolete, on the ground that, any country in the world would sell it's navy ,it's airforce ,it's tank corps, and rather opt for
1- Tactical ballistic missiles like Iskander-E
2- Smerch
3- S-400 & S-300
4- G6 Krasnopol-M combination
5- Mokopa on land based systems
all the above will be procured en mass as the country won't spend it's defense budget on anything else.
I'm asking this:
Is the Air land battle doctrine obsolete, on the ground that, any country in the world would sell it's navy ,it's airforce ,it's tank corps, and rather opt for
1- Tactical ballistic missiles like Iskander-E
2- Smerch
3- S-400 & S-300
4- G6 Krasnopol-M combination
5- Mokopa on land based systems
all the above will be procured en mass as the country won't spend it's defense budget on anything else.
No. Every new sword is just a starter for deweloping new shield. There are few system witch are protecting tanks against ATGM. Just two ex. of them:We7det_el_qetal_ra3d said:
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/drozd.html
http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/EQP/arena.html
Do you have more informations about it? Articles, photos, films etc. I have saw lots of Abramses while and after hit but any Challengers.Aussie Digger said:
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #12
Actually the mentioned active defense systems don't work against laser guided artillery which is the primary tank killer
the ATGMs are used to stop an advancing armour column so that the artillery and ( or ) the MLRS could saturate this area with either laser guided shells like Krasnopol-M or heat seeking munitions like the Kitolov-2M launched by the Smerch system
The british haven't been as heavily involved in the fighting as the US so naturally they have had much less losses, and besides these guys have better politics than the US anyways
the ATGMs are used to stop an advancing armour column so that the artillery and ( or ) the MLRS could saturate this area with either laser guided shells like Krasnopol-M or heat seeking munitions like the Kitolov-2M launched by the Smerch system
The british haven't been as heavily involved in the fighting as the US so naturally they have had much less losses, and besides these guys have better politics than the US anyways
Spoken as only a soldier can. What's the objective? Where's the opposng force? How to take control of the situation, set the place for contact? Its not only the gun that is important, its the man who holds the gun.Aussie Digger said:Well as a former crew commander of an APC I KNOW what I would do, (turn around and find a simpler battlefield to fight on...)
Seriously though I'm not sure what you're asking. What is the situation? What is the nature of the terrain we're fighting on? What forces do I have at MY disposal? What forces do you possess (other than a few equipment types)? Why are we fighting? What do I intend to gain, and what do you hope to achieve?
How far am I, or are you deployed from our home bases? What are the rules of engagement? Is this a high intensity warfighting conflict or is it a peace-making/keeping operation, where the insurgents just happen to be extremely well equipped? Who are my allies if any? Who are yours? What is your logistical situation? What is mine?
Unfortunately to answer what can a tank do in a given situation, you have to be able to answer all those questions and more. Naming a couple of equipment types and asking what a tank can do is useless...
ATGMs are not the silver bullet against tanks. I should know - tanks respond very badly to AT teams. The amount of firepower the tanks can put out is greater than any ATGM team unless its a ATGM group.
Whereas ATGMs are single purpose ie to blow up hard targets, tanks are more general purpose. Tanks can support infantry assaults, defend and hold ground and are hard to kill. Just having a ATGM - whatever brand is not good enough. The shooter must have nerves of steel and be ready to run like mad when he fired his shot at a tank. Stay around after that and he won't have enough pieces left for burying.
Where tanks can shoot on the move and attack from a jump start, killing most opposition without any prior planning, killing tanks are a different proposition.The killing ground must be chosen properly and the AT team(s) sited and hidden properly. It's much like hunting and being hunted by a dangerous beast.
Last edited:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I'm sorry I might be a bit thick but I don't really understand this new hypothetical question.We7det_el_qetal_ra3d said:
What Country in the world has ever remotely done anything like you've suggested? Sold all it's current air land and naval platforms and replaced said equipment with a Tactical Ballistic missile system, an MLRS type artillery system (Smerch), 2 very long range SAM systems, some sort of (nonexistent) hybrid South African/Russian artillery system and an anti-tank missile system that is currently only fielded on a South African Attack helicopter AND which has yet to achieve full operational service?
I'm sorry, I don't think ANY Country in the world would adopt this sort of thing. For 1, it completely ignores the need for a balanced land force. 2. It provides no naval or air (as in aircraft) cover whatsoever. 3 Such a system would be systematically destroyed as the capabilities you mentioned are not complementary and would not even operate effectively.
The other problems are this:
1. Your tactical missile system would be about as useful as Iraq's Scuds during the Gulf War. To use a TBM effectively you must have targetting data. Where are you going to get this from since you just sold all your ISR assets to pay for your fancy new toys. Google?
2. Do you really think that SAM's alone are capable of providing for your air defence requirements? The only effective air defence systems are layered, complementary systems, involving shorter and longer ranged weapon systems, targetted by a number of different radar systems, and linked together by a quality C3I system. To this must be added a quality airforce. The Russians more than anyone implemented this system and they INVENTED your S-300/400 SAMS!!!
3. Where did you come up with the idea for a hybrid G6 Krasnopol-M artillery system? Why would anyone want to integrate such wildly different systems? Why not use one or the other?
4. Again with the Mokopa from Land vehicles. Do you know of any such system actually existing? A link that I can check out would be nice. I couldn't find any info whatsoever about such a system.
If you want to know if the air/land doctrine is obsolete. Why don't you ask some Iraqi soldiers?
I don't mean to appear too harsh, but hypothetical questions need to be a bit more realistic...
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #16
Nope no country did what i suggest that's why air land battle still exist
my doctrine is NOT balanced i mentioned that from the start, it heavly leans towards defense, that's why it eliminated the need for tanks.
1- my tactical missile system would get the data it needs for targeting from SOF, UAV, Automatic ground surviellance systems.
2- yup in 1973 the SAM wall had to be broken by actually over-running the air defense battalions by armour not by SEAD assets.
3- actually SADF have g6 platforms which are capable of launching Krasnopol-M shells, the system was developed in co-operation with KBP from Russia.
4- I'll try to find the link and post it.
my air defense system is a layered one, and is VERY effective and this doctrine is actually called "virtual air-force" u can look it up, it means u can have air denial and deep strike ability without having to field aircrafts at all
my doctrine is NOT balanced i mentioned that from the start, it heavly leans towards defense, that's why it eliminated the need for tanks.
1- my tactical missile system would get the data it needs for targeting from SOF, UAV, Automatic ground surviellance systems.
2- yup in 1973 the SAM wall had to be broken by actually over-running the air defense battalions by armour
not by SEAD assets.3- actually SADF have g6 platforms which are capable of launching Krasnopol-M shells, the system was developed in co-operation with KBP from Russia.
4- I'll try to find the link and post it.
my air defense system is a layered one, and is VERY effective and this doctrine is actually called "virtual air-force" u can look it up, it means u can have air denial and deep strike ability without having to field aircrafts at all
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
Why would someone purposefully design an "unbalanced force"? Your air defence system is not layered in the slightest. You advocate 2 extended range SAM's which both essentially perform the same role.
The S-400 in addition isn't even in Russian service yet and is still undergoing testing, so I fail to see how anyone else could operate this weapon.
The S-300 has of course been in service for quite some time, but is going to be difficult for most countries to acquire sufficient quantities of these weapons to defend their entire country, due to their expense. In addition the cost of S-300 missiles compared to normal air to air missiles is extremely high and acquiring sufficient warstocks is going to beyond the means of most countries. On top of this, IF your scenario was feasible or even "better" don't you think someone MIGHT have tried it? The fact that no-one has should be very telling...
I'd also be interested in seeing a link for the South African G6 and Russian Krasnopol-M shells too, particularly in light of the fact that the G6 is a 155mm NATO standard calibre weapon system and the Krasnopol-M shells are Russian 152mm calibre...
The S-400 in addition isn't even in Russian service yet and is still undergoing testing, so I fail to see how anyone else could operate this weapon.
The S-300 has of course been in service for quite some time, but is going to be difficult for most countries to acquire sufficient quantities of these weapons to defend their entire country, due to their expense. In addition the cost of S-300 missiles compared to normal air to air missiles is extremely high and acquiring sufficient warstocks is going to beyond the means of most countries. On top of this, IF your scenario was feasible or even "better" don't you think someone MIGHT have tried it? The fact that no-one has should be very telling...
I'd also be interested in seeing a link for the South African G6 and Russian Krasnopol-M shells too, particularly in light of the fact that the G6 is a 155mm NATO standard calibre weapon system and the Krasnopol-M shells are Russian 152mm calibre...
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #18
Actually i didn't mention the whole deal sorry
It's S-400, S-300, BUK-M2, TOR-M1, TUNGUSKA.
If u didn't bother with the rest of the crap like Armour, Navy and Airforce u would have more than sufficient funds ( an S-300 battalion costs the equivalent of 3 F-16Cs ).
The S-400 is well past testing stage, China is already negotiating sales with Russia coz the russian army doesn't afford the new system.
No one tried my scenario coz no head of state can think outside the box
Hanibal didn't use the same point of view of the Roman empire ( although it was the strongest military of it's time ) and he slaughtered 16 roman legions in one battle employing the first double flanking manouvre in history, the roman empire prayed night and day that no other opposing forces would adopt Hanibals tactics to the extent that they banned people in Carthage from naming their children Hanibal.
Generals make battle , military pioneers make doctrine.
sorryIt's S-400, S-300, BUK-M2, TOR-M1, TUNGUSKA.
If u didn't bother with the rest of the crap like Armour, Navy and Airforce u would have more than sufficient funds ( an S-300 battalion costs the equivalent of 3 F-16Cs
).The S-400 is well past testing stage, China is already negotiating sales with Russia coz the russian army doesn't afford the new system.
No one tried my scenario coz no head of state can think outside the box
Hanibal didn't use the same point of view of the Roman empire ( although it was the strongest military of it's time ) and he slaughtered 16 roman legions in one battle employing the first double flanking manouvre in history, the roman empire prayed night and day that no other opposing forces would adopt Hanibals tactics to the extent that they banned people in Carthage from naming their children Hanibal.
Generals make battle , military pioneers make doctrine.
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #19
Krasnopol-M has a 155mm version designed for western standard systems
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I think the main reason no has ever tried this systems is it doesn't provide sufficient flexibility... There is no higher level transport assets for starters meaning you have no deployable capability. This means you will be totally reliant upon other Countries to assist you.
2nd. Only having 1 form of air defence, (your S-300 and S-400 SAM's) gives your enemy only one option that he needs to defeat.
This is a bonus for him and a handicap for you. Multiple air defence options, (AAA, SAM's, air defence aircraft) means that any attacker has to take into account these different capabilities if he wants to be able to attack succesfully.
In addition your big extended range SAM's are good for protecting large areas of your air space, but they are NOT good for protecting your mobile ground forces, due to their inherent lack of mobility. This is why Countries that operate these systems (including Russia, China etc) have smaller, shorter ranging systems that can be more easily deployed.
No one tried my scenario coz no head of state can think outside the box
This statement seems a little bit conceited to me. You obviously have your idea of your favourite pieces of military equipment (or favourite toys as I shall call it). Are YOU a member (or former member) of a professional military force? If you were you'd know that there are some extremely intelligent people there who can indeed "think outside the box".
It is very rare for a politician to decide completely what capabilities a military force should have. The capabilities usually found with a particular force are there because they have been recommended by the force. Every modern professional military has a sunstantial military capability development process. They investigate military capabilities, consider them against their strategic reality and doctrine (and yes funding constraints) and advise their Governments accordingly.
I'm going to keep saying it til it gets through. A un-balanced, inflexible military capability such as that proposed by you, has not ever been selected by ANY Country. It will not (short of you taking over as a dictator of some Country) as it does not provide the capability options a Government looks for... Even Saddam HUSSEIN who could have had anything he wanted military wise had a more flexible and capable military than the one you propose...
2nd. Only having 1 form of air defence, (your S-300 and S-400 SAM's) gives your enemy only one option that he needs to defeat.
This is a bonus for him and a handicap for you. Multiple air defence options, (AAA, SAM's, air defence aircraft) means that any attacker has to take into account these different capabilities if he wants to be able to attack succesfully.
In addition your big extended range SAM's are good for protecting large areas of your air space, but they are NOT good for protecting your mobile ground forces, due to their inherent lack of mobility. This is why Countries that operate these systems (including Russia, China etc) have smaller, shorter ranging systems that can be more easily deployed.
No one tried my scenario coz no head of state can think outside the box
This statement seems a little bit conceited to me. You obviously have your idea of your favourite pieces of military equipment (or favourite toys as I shall call it). Are YOU a member (or former member) of a professional military force? If you were you'd know that there are some extremely intelligent people there who can indeed "think outside the box".
It is very rare for a politician to decide completely what capabilities a military force should have. The capabilities usually found with a particular force are there because they have been recommended by the force. Every modern professional military has a sunstantial military capability development process. They investigate military capabilities, consider them against their strategic reality and doctrine (and yes funding constraints) and advise their Governments accordingly.
I'm going to keep saying it til it gets through. A un-balanced, inflexible military capability such as that proposed by you, has not ever been selected by ANY Country. It will not (short of you taking over as a dictator of some Country) as it does not provide the capability options a Government looks for... Even Saddam HUSSEIN who could have had anything he wanted military wise had a more flexible and capable military than the one you propose...