Good point - I do not understand why everyone thinks that tank fired ATGMs are going to be the bulk of a combat load on a tank, we are talking 3 - 6 rounds that will be carried and that is about it, and they will most likely be used to take out slow moving air assetts.
Whats the Next Gen Tank?
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
- Status
About radars on the tanks apropos: the new Ericsson HARD 3D radar is offered for installation with BMP-3M for foreign clients. It may be a searching and accusition unit for the tank platoon command post (command tank) which is datalinked with the others. The rational point here is a need for the same level of protection for commander vehicle as the whole platoon.
All other assets are indirect fire support weapons which should be extra ordered, wasting time. In modern warfire even 1-2 min delay might cause enemy to close enouth. No other assets have such instant responce time as direct fire weapons like ATGM's.
It maybe not primary weapon of the tank, but it certainly will be a huge help in some situations. In many case entire enemy regiments could be killed without losses given right position.
Of course, terrain, etc. will not always allow such long-range shots, but on the other hand you cant always hide in terrain obstacles. Moreover, the need to always hide starting from 5-6 km distance or get ATGM's in the face also greatly affect enemy mobilty and possible attack/defence pattern.
Sure. Nobody with some brain denies that gun launched ATGMs have their values and are usefull at some special ocassions, especially against lighter armor.
Because of that the russians carry a handfull of ATGMs with them.
And with the ongoing development of hard- and soft-kill proetction systems ATGMs get a hard day while KEs retain much more of their capabilities when facing such systems.
Because of that the russians carry a handfull of ATGMs with them.
And with the ongoing development of hard- and soft-kill proetction systems ATGMs get a hard day while KEs retain much more of their capabilities when facing such systems.
ATGM's also didnt stop development. Top-attack, multi-penetrator, kinetic kill (like LAHAT), top-attack with kinetic penetrator which could be launched from up to 50m height, etc.
All these variants are very hard to impossible to intercept for currently present and currently developing APS.
Yes - I agree that they do have some advantages especially when the element of surprise is on their side, but after that then you could face a whole onslaught of other weapons systems that will be brought to bear on you. Most Armies have recon elements that will be out scouting also just for the reason of causing a deliberate attack to see what the main body will be facing.
This work both ways, you know? The side with ATGM's will also have the very same support. ATGM's is just another option. Even without "surprise" element ATGM's will still play its role in limiting enemy movement and in some cases (when it is impossbile to hide in terrain) to completely stop enemy advance or force enemy to take heavy casualities.
Where are you going to find this type of terrian in the desert, most terrian in Europe will render maingun engagements during the initial contact, also are you going to give away your positions by firing a couple of long range rounds at recon elements because they got to close to your positions. This turns it into a catch 22 situation for a defensive element. Again how many of these rounds do Russian tanks carry 3 to 6 rounds, that is not enough in my eyes to give away your positions, with luck maybe 50% of them would find their mark due to incoming artillery and air power screaming at you. I think a good possible scenario (terrian permiting) would be if you are in a offensive posture you could set up some of your armor in over watch positions that could cover your movements after enemy firing positions have been identified or that the pesky attack helicopters show up. That may work on some of those tankers that do not want to give up their fighting positions or stay popped up for to long, this old dog would be moving to a alternate position after busting three caps.
Even in Europe there are plenty areas with such visiblty, especeally considering "good" positions like small hills, etc. 3-6 missiles are enouth to cause plenty damage - especeally if hit not strictly frontally. But even frontally there are weakened areas. And there are lighter vehicles also... A killed Bradley with its crew might be even greater loss than killed Leopard.Where are you going to find this type of terrian in the desert, most terrian in Europe will render maingun engagements during the initial contact, also are you going to give away your positions by firing a couple of long range rounds at recon elements because they got to close to your positions. This turns it into a catch 22 situation for a defensive element. Again how many of these rounds do Russian tanks carry 3 to 6 rounds, that is not enough in my eyes to give away your positions, with luck maybe 50% of them would find their mark due to incoming artillery and air power screaming at you. I think a good possible scenario (terrian permiting) would be if you are in a offensive posture you could set up some of your armor in over watch positions that could cover your movements after enemy firing positions have been identified or that the pesky attack helicopters show up. That may work on some of those tankers that do not want to give up their fighting positions or stay popped up for to long, this old dog would be moving to a alternate position after busting three caps.
Given away position is not that bad as it sounds due to general lack of good targetting on enemy side - else this position would be uncovered much sooner. For example, firing couple of ATGM's will not make you target for enemy artillery or aviation as they would have hard time employing guiding ammunition, and unguided area-attack ammunition is quite ineffective against tanks. Moreover, aviation and good artillery is not always available enouth in such cases.
This subject remind me about APS/ERA on tanks. For 20 years western "analytics" claimed these are ineffective way to make inheritly "inferior" russian armor protection up to western standards. In reality, as we now know, russian passsive armor was at least as good as western examples, and APS/ERA made the protection superior . The APS/ERA are now proclaimed as high-tech future of armored warfare. The examples of LAHAT, a 5-6km range standard for all heavy AT missiles around the world, efforts to make guided APFSDS rounds - all these hints what 5-6km range for ATGM's is by far not as useless as you think.
You think about measures what minimise such russian tanks advantage (like terrain hiding, calling air support, etc) . True, there are some measures. But employing these measures have the price on its own, and the price is not small.
I think, apart with LOS ATGM, the capability of vehicle to combine it with BLOS fire is an important point in the current arm-building. The most close to Russian '120 mm Vena' is the American concept of the Mounted Combat System - it's ongoing development starting from 2003. It used to have a 120mm main gun with LOS/BLOS capability, a .50 machine gun, and a Mk-19 40mm. Hovewer I should offer 30 mm axial autocannon like on BMP-3 in addition... Thus it will look as 'improved BMP-3'
I shoud put here a citation about MCS purpose and conception:
"It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the MCS will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place. If the MCS is used in a manner that optimizes its capabilities and minimizes its operational weaknesses, the overall contribution of its ODFL capabilities to survivability will be relatively small."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-blos.htm
- I cant agree with it more...
I shoud put here a citation about MCS purpose and conception:
"It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the MCS will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place. If the MCS is used in a manner that optimizes its capabilities and minimizes its operational weaknesses, the overall contribution of its ODFL capabilities to survivability will be relatively small."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-blos.htm
- I cant agree with it more...
Last edited:
Some rounds of ATGMs are going to be enough to reveal your position for artillery fire.
And intelligent ammunition like SMARt is going to get you when you are in a fixed position and AT-bomblets are also not that nice for your tanks and are going to cause some serious damage.
We are not arguing against the fact that tube launched ATGMs do have their advantages during some circumstances.
But staying in a defensive position and launching a handfull of ATGMs against enemy tanks approaching at extreme range is not one of these ocassions.
And intelligent ammunition like SMARt is going to get you when you are in a fixed position and AT-bomblets are also not that nice for your tanks and are going to cause some serious damage.
We are not arguing against the fact that tube launched ATGMs do have their advantages during some circumstances.
But staying in a defensive position and launching a handfull of ATGMs against enemy tanks approaching at extreme range is not one of these ocassions.
LAHAT does not rely on kinetic energy for its kill mechanism. It uses a tandem-HEAT warhead with a top-attack option.
very true
That is what is giving armor developers head aches in the U.S during developing and testing, we know that even if we were to take Russia out of the equation that their are alot of countries who are building up armor forces and we may be faced with that type of scenario again in the future. To survive in that type of battlefield contact you need a vehicle that can give you good armor protection and a good gun platform that will deliver first round kills and do it quickly. ATGMs fired out of mainguns at the current time do not give you quicker engagement times versus firing direct fire munitions.I think, apart with LOS ATGM, the capability of vehicle to combine it with BLOS fire is an important point in the current arm-building. The most close to Russian '120 mm Vena' is the American concept of the Mounted Combat System - it's ongoing development starting from 2003. It used to have a 120mm main gun with LOS/BLOS capability, a .50 machine gun, and a Mk-19 40mm. Hovewer I should offer 30 mm axial autocannon like on BMP-3 in addition... Thus it will look as 'improved BMP-3'
I shoud put here a citation about MCS purpose and conception:
"It is a virtual certainty that future conflicts in the 2025-era will find US forces opposing traditional massed heavy armor. There will be occasions where the MCS will encounter such enemy forces and direct fire engagements will be unavoidable. Under such circumstances, Overmatching Direct Fire Lethality (ODFL) will be essential to FCS survivability. For a vehicle as light as 20 tons, however, ODFL as protection reflects a last-ditch defensive measure of desperation to be called upon only after the vehicle has gotten itself into a situation that should have been avoided in the first place. If the MCS is used in a manner that optimizes its capabilities and minimizes its operational weaknesses, the overall contribution of its ODFL capabilities to survivability will be relatively small."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-blos.htm
- I cant agree with it more...
To put a compact vehicle on the battlefield with enough punch and armor protection is just not there yet. The U.S and other countries have tested guns from 40mm firing hyper velocity DU projectiles all the way up to ETC gun platforms and the technology is just not there to place it on the batlefield.
Even when such weapon will be ready, I cant imagine situation of US long time monopoly on it. THus we should expect such weapon (or a different weapon of similar effectiveness) from both side in any 'high-end' conflict scenario, rather then one-sided possessing. If so, I expect just coming back to the current 'one-hit-one-kill' situation between two enemies with the most advanced DU APFSDSs.
If so, why the American Army sponsors the MRM-KE ATGM program for its newest MCS-FCS vehicle? http://www.advfn.com/news_ATKS-MRM-Scores-First-Ever-Direct-Hit_7288469.html
Do you compare this weapon to current fielded 125mm tube launched ATGMs?
I thought it was obvious that my post was referring to current ATGMs and how they lead to your own position being revealed to enemy forces even when using them at extreme distances.
I thought it was obvious that my post was referring to current ATGMs and how they lead to your own position being revealed to enemy forces even when using them at extreme distances.
I didnt understand your hint. did you mean, this new ATGM they dont expect to use on the distance less then 5-6 km? If not, how its launch can be invisible?
- Status