Light Tanks

A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Not necessarily. France, Australia, US and UK all have systems to deal with it.

Australian anti-sniping systems have been sold to US Treasury (think of which protection element is in US Treasury)

Slave it to a counter fire system and it doesn't matter how far they scoot.

The French used theirs in Bosnia. Australia is now working on a man portable version. The software is now PDA portable.

In tests we ran against multiple shooters we could have responded LOS with a slaved RCWS - in fact the new RCWS are ideal system partnerings for anti-sniper work. One of our foreign partners has slaved mortars to their software.

Accuracy is within a fraction of a metre, response is within milliseconds - and if you use mortars or electronically ranged heavy ballistics - then the CEP will kill anything with roll range.

Attach it to an IMV or scout car (like the french) and hand it off to an RCWS fitted vehicle. (As is currently used).

This tech is already in service.
Slaving the system to a Mk 19 AGL or similar would guarantee to kill any person within a 5m radius and provide a range over 1000m's. A 12.7mm HMG would not quite provide the "guaranteed" kill radius but it would provide greater range, allowing the engagement of even those Snipers equipped with AMR type rifles...

I am sure however quality Snipers can develop a few tricks to "conceal" themselves even in the face of such technology... All in all though, it's a pretty nasty time to be a Snipers and you'd REALLY want to pick your hides
well... :shudder
 

rickshaw

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Not necessarily. France, Australia, US and UK all have systems to deal with it.

Australian anti-sniping systems have been sold to US Treasury (think of which protection element is in US Treasury)

Slave it to a counter fire system and it doesn't matter how far they scoot.

The French used theirs in Bosnia. Australia is now working on a man portable version. The software is now PDA portable.

In tests we ran against multiple shooters we could have responded LOS with a slaved RCWS - in fact the new RCWS are ideal system partnerings for anti-sniper work. One of our foreign partners has slaved mortars to their software.

Accuracy is within a fraction of a metre, response is within milliseconds - and if you use mortars or electronically ranged heavy ballistics - then the CEP will kill anything with roll range.

Attach it to an IMV or scout car (like the french) and hand it off to an RCWS fitted vehicle. (As is currently used).

This tech is already in service.
Somehow I have my doubts that such a system would provide a guarantee fix on a single shot. As AD suggests, I also don't doubt there would be ways and means to counter such a system. Sniping is not quite a dead art, yet IMO.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
U.S snipers are trained to shoot at vehicle commanders and vehicle optics.
Against moving targets?
I mean for sure you can attack a group of vehicles which has a break but while moving I cannot really imagine that this is a good shot possobility.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Somehow I have my doubts that such a system would provide a guarantee fix on a single shot. As AD suggests, I also don't doubt there would be ways and means to counter such a system. Sniping is not quite a dead art, yet IMO.
Nothings perfect, but in the trials done by ADF - even though army "loaded the bases" to stress the system - all shooters were pinpointed in under .5 sec of the shot. The locale of the shooters is identified within a 1 square metre of the initial shot. The chances of a shooter being able to roll away from a responding and directed area effect weapon is pretty low.

Sniping is far from being a dead art - but the right gear can absolutely spot, locate and hurt the enemy.

PM me if you want further. Its not something I want to detail in the public domain.


Again, the working example is the French use in Bosnia.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Against moving targets?
I mean for sure you can attack a group of vehicles which has a break but while moving I cannot really imagine that this is a good shot possobility.
These guy`s are pretty good, even the insurgents in Iraq have been taking out armored crewmen on Bradleys and M1`s. Some of the training and equipment that they use are quite remarkable.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
But Iraq is a different story.
This is urban environment with crewmen which need to show themself due to patrol and police work.

I don't want to argue against the fact that under some circumstances crewman of AFVs are valuable targets for snipers but not during maneuver warfare in the open field and especially not to target the tracks of an MBT with a .50 cal sniper rifle.
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
But Iraq is a different story.
This is urban environment with crewmen which need to show themself due to patrol and police work.

I don't want to argue against the fact that under some circumstances crewman of AFVs are valuable targets for snipers but not during maneuver warfare in the open field and especially not to target the tracks of an MBT with a .50 cal sniper rifle.
Granted that it may be a challenge for a sniper that is sniping at vehicles in a offensive manuver, but vehicles traveling down roads or sitting in a defensive positions would be a different matter, they can reach out and touch you at over a kilometer away.
 

extern

New Member
Hmm, interestingly four M8 finaly have entered service in 82th airborn?

Inside The Army
March 15, 2004
Pg. 1

Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division

The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.

Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.

The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an "operational needs statement" to Army Forces Command that spells out the division's need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army's operations and plans office, or "G-3," has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.

TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.

According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in "no way should be construed as support for an AGS program." Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.

The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the source said.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.

"To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another," Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. "I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.

"My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?" he added. "If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania."

Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.

The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.

Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.

"We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we're ready to provide support if asked to do so," Muktarian said.

Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, "with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible."

The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division's 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams "mobility, firepower and shock effects" within the "drop zone," he added.

"It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it," Patterson said.

AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.

The division's requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.

When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan's replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service's outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.

Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting Hayes' attention.

"Let's find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need," Hayes told ITA last week.

-- Anne Plummer
 

eckherl

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Hmm, interestingly four M8 finaly have entered service in 82th airborn?

Inside The Army
March 15, 2004
Pg. 1

Army To Transfer Four Armored Gun Systems To 82nd Airborne Division

The Army last week approved the transfer of four M8 Armored Gun Systems from contractor storage facilities to the 82nd Airborne Division at Ft. Bragg, NC, sources say, marking the first time the vehicles will be used by the service since the program was terminated in 1996.

Proposed in the 1980s as a lightweight combat vehicle that could fit aboard a C-130, the AGS was canceled as the Army struggled to pay for other priorities. Contractor United Defense LP, which fought the cancellation decision, has five M8 AGS vehicles in stock -- four in York, PA, and one in San Jose, CA.

The 18th Airborne Corps at Ft. Bragg recently passed along an "operational needs statement" to Army Forces Command that spells out the division's need for a rapidly deployable vehicle with firepower that could be dropped from an aircraft (Inside the Army, Feb. 16, p1). The Army's operations and plans office, or "G-3," has been reviewing the requirement with Training and Doctrine Command.

TRADOC completed its analysis on Feb. 19, and the G-3 approved the needs statement on March 8, authorizing transfer of the existing vehicles to the 82nd Airborne Division, sources say. By press time (March 11), the Army had not released a copy of the approval documents.

According to one source, officials made it clear in the documents that the transfer in "no way should be construed as support for an AGS program." Instead, it is an attempt to meet the immediate requirement with an interim solution and allow the division to begin developing and refining tactics, techniques and procedures.

The unit expects to receive the vehicles by the end of March, the source said.

Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC), a member of the House Armed Services Committee whose district includes Ft. Bragg, said he is pleased with the decision, but does not want the transfer to be misconstrued as a move to revive the terminated program.

"To be clear, I am not endorsing one system over another," Hayes told ITA in a March 12 statement. "I simply believe that, if these existing AGS are combat-worthy, then they should be fully utilized while we await the future technologies that are already in production.

"My priority on this matter is simple -- what can we do to help our soldiers in the field the fastest?" he added. "If our soldiers can utilize these existing systems, then I want these systems in Baghdad rather than in a manufacturing facility in Pennsylvania."

Hayes asked the Army last December to provide him information on the matter, including how much the transfer would cost and whether spare parts are available to maintain the gun systems. Last week, a spokesman for Hayes said the congressman was told government and contractor costs are estimated at approximately $1 million for one year of support for AGS.

The funding, however, is not as much of a concern to the Army as the availability of parts for a system that was terminated eight years ago. Sources say UDLP can sustain the systems for a limited amount of time, but many of its components are now obsolete or unavailable. Supporting the system beyond one year poses high risk, sources said.

Herb Muktarian, a spokesman for UDLP's ground systems division in York, said the systems are ready to go.

"We have not received any official requests from the Army regarding AGS, but the four AGS vehicles stored in York remain in excellent condition and we're ready to provide support if asked to do so," Muktarian said.

Maj. Rich Patterson, a spokesman for the 18th Airborne Corps, said officials at Ft. Bragg have been notified and are assembling the necessary manning documents, additional equipment and training plans, "with the intent to integrate the AGS into division operations as soon as possible."

The vehicles will go to the 1st Battalion of the division's 17th Cavalry Squadron, Patterson said. AGS will provide its assault teams "mobility, firepower and shock effects" within the "drop zone," he added.

"It gives us a capability we could deploy if we need it," Patterson said.

AGS features a 105 mm cannon, an ammunition autoloader and options for armor protection.

The division's requirement for an air-droppable platform has existed at least since the 1990s, when the division disbanded one of its battalions -- the 3rd Battalion of the 73rd Armored Regiment, which was equipped with an aging armored reconnaissance vehicle called the Sheridan. At the time, service officials thought other capabilities would become available to the paratroopers once the M551 Sheridan was retired.

When the division deactivated the armored battalion in 1997, however, then-Army Chief of Staff Gen. Dennis Reimer had already terminated AGS, which had been regarded as the Sheridan's replacement. Eliminating AGS freed more than $1 billion over the service's outyear funding plan -- money that was badly needed for other cash-strapped programs, officials said at the time.

Two years after the program was canceled, service officials said they continued to review options for all light forces that wanted more firepower. Vehicles reviewed included AGS, the Marine Corps' Light Armored Vehicle, the Pandur lightweight vehicles used by the Kuwait National Guard and a variant of the M113 armored personnel carrier (ITA, Oct. 4, 1999, p1; Sept. 27, 1999, p1).

That effort, however, went nowhere, and the 82nd Airborne Division resubmitted its request for such a vehicle, eventually attracting Hayes' attention.

"Let's find out as soon as possible if AGS can serve effectively as a short-term solution for an immediate operational need," Hayes told ITA last week.

-- Anne Plummer
Yes - they are evaluating them again to a point to where they were supposed to be shipped to FT Bragg, I don`t think that the 82nd Airborne knows what it wants to go with yet.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Not necessarily. France, Australia, US and UK all have systems to deal with it.

Australian anti-sniping systems have been sold to US Treasury (think of which protection element is in US Treasury)

Slave it to a counter fire system and it doesn't matter how far they scoot.

The French used theirs in Bosnia. Australia is now working on a man portable version. The software is now PDA portable.

In tests we ran against multiple shooters we could have responded LOS with a slaved RCWS - in fact the new RCWS are ideal system partnerings for anti-sniper work. One of our foreign partners has slaved mortars to their software.

Accuracy is within a fraction of a metre, response is within milliseconds - and if you use mortars or electronically ranged heavy ballistics - then the CEP will kill anything with roll range.

Attach it to an IMV or scout car (like the french) and hand it off to an RCWS fitted vehicle. (As is currently used).

This tech is already in service.
Of course there are ways around such systems.

I belive such systems work on sound?. Decoy sounds (via timers, or trigger activated etc). It could be timed and arrange so the actual shot sounds as an echo and would be disregarded or placed as a lower priority.

Another would be to silence or disguise sound of the rifle. Possibly used in conjunction with my first suggestion.

Locate yourself in an area where returning fire would be not possible or difficult.

You could target the system itself. Either with gun fire or with mines, bombs etc.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Of course there are ways around such systems.
usually, but the number of countires with countering capability are few (and I mean few) and far between

I belive such systems work on sound?. Decoy sounds (via timers, or trigger activated etc). It could be timed and arrange so the actual shot sounds as an echo and would be disregarded or placed as a lower priority.
No, the systems are able to discriminate on other acoustics

Another would be to silence or disguise sound of the rifle. Possibly used in conjunction with my first suggestion.
doesn't matter. they're acoustically mapped

Locate yourself in an area where returning fire would be not possible or difficult.
always possible, except there are always ways to place hesh or a thermobaric into the grid identified by the sensors. :rolleyes: Or as the americans have discovered, slotting one through the bottom corner floor plays havoc with multi story buildings.

You could target the system itself. Either with gun fire or with mines, bombs etc.
huh?? its a dispersed system.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Would I be correct if I thought it is the sonic crack ie it is the projectile trajectory that is registered, and not only the firing of the weapon itself?
Correctamundo.... :D

We're currently working on a manportable system for our future soldier concept. Prev systems required a laptop to process data - now its down to a PDA.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
How about subsonic ammo?
Does the system has problems with such ammo?
No. all calibres and round "acoutrements" are able to be mapped.

Literally, if you hear it, you can kill it.

Tests have involved multiple concurrent snipers, the systems tested have been able to map and target all shooters within milliseconds.

If you slave that to an electronically managed response, then you can area deny the shooter within milliseconds.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro

It is rather. :D

Snipers by default, fire LOS - that means that any overlapped response will also have the opportunity to fire LOS. If the sniper is a high OP, then you can drop the building with approp LOS large calibre rounds, guided mortar fire, Javelin, Dragon, AT4, Carl Gustav, thermobarics etc..... Or you can respond with ballistics if approp.

The role of a sniper is far from dead, but its going to be a lot harder to do the job if the defending force has this technology in play...
 

Thumper

Banned Member
If the sniper is a high OP, then you can drop the building with approp LOS large calibre rounds, guided mortar fire, Javelin, Dragon, AT4, Carl Gustav, thermobarics etc...
How do you do that if the sniper is in a high rise or house full of civilians? Same applies to a sniper located in a sensitive location such as a mosque?
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
If ROEs don't allow for a direct response you have to go in.

Business as usual despite the fact that you have a bigger chance to locate the sniper.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
No, the systems are able to discriminate on other acoustics
Im not talking about setting off some bungers at point B while shooting at point A. Remote activated weapons of the same type or, decoys that make the exact same sound. These weapons would all be activated at exactly the same moment. Or slightly earlier to draw counter fire away from the acutal position of the sniper, who might be remotely operated anyway.

Im quite sure the system is quite good. I know there has been some work on not just identifying the location of gun fire, but reporting information such as what type of gun fire and how many times it has been fired.

When you take this down to the PDA level, you can display a screen where all your friendlies are firing and where the bad guys are, how much ammo they have used, what type of weapons they are using etc. Thats extremely powerful. You know that Jimmy is down to his last clip, and how many people are targeting him and from where.

The system could be adapted to listen for voices/footprints or even ground vibrations to locate the enemy.

The system can operate much like a ship fitted R2D2 or CWIZ. But for tanks and eventually even individual troops.

Of course such a system would be ineffective against RPGs, long range motars, artillary, rail gun type weapons, bow and arrows, certain guided muntions, silenced munitons, mines, remote detonated bombs etc. Snipers aren't standing still, they will just have to evolve from a single man with a high powered rifle.

Given that training a number of excellent snipers is an expensive and lengthy process, its going out of favour. A few monkies with RPG's or a few kg of C4 and a remote detonator are usually more cost effective.
 
Top