Role of the modern AT gun

[Dante]

Misha,

I was talking about this one Finnish D-30 122 H 63A;)
Not a pure AT gun,but a good mix.

[Misha]

Misha,

I was talking about this one Finnish D-30 122 H 63A;)
Not a pure AT gun,but a good mix.

Oh, that. I've understood it's a fine piece. Even though wikipedia says it has been successfully used in a direct fire role, that function has never popped up as an option when doing battle plans. They have always been considerd far more uselful in their intended role.

I remember discussing the option once during an excercise - even then the subject was whether gun crew should even try direct fire if about to be crushed by tanks - and came up with the conclusion that they'd better run to the woods and try to get a hold of some LAW's.

[1979]

Does anyone know how do the russians picture using the anti-tank regiments?
With all the major drawbacks,why do they boder with them..it was going to be an offensive war,from there side,and planned to use defensive units?

The soviet antitank regiment had 36 AT guns and 27 BRMD-2 vehicles. (12/9 per battalion).
The antitank regiment it's a guards army asset. It's meant to support 2 or 3 mechanized divisions and 1 or 2 tank divisions.

The tank divisions have NO organic antitank battalion and all support artillery is self propelled.( for obvious reasons )
The mechanized divisions had one antitank battalion (12 at guns and 9 brmd-2 ) and they're BTR regiments had each a towed artillery battalion for support.
The tank and bmp regiments also field only self propelled artillery as they are the divisions operational maneuver group.

The antitank regiment is usually kept in reserve but the army commander could as well chose to reinforce the mechanized divisions with a another antitank battalion in order to deter or repel a armored assault.
A reinforced mechanized division would field two towed artillery battalions and two antitank battalions.

[kato]

The Bundeswehr used to field a SP 90mm gun (on a Marder chassis) in the panzerjager platoons of panzergrenadier battalions, along with TOW launchers.

The KanJgPz wasn't used alongside TOW launchers. It also wasn't a Marder chassis, but a complete new chassis development.
It was used in the AT platoons of Panzergrenadier battalions alongside the old PAL810 "Cobra" ATGM (in a separate platoon), and in the AT coys of Mechanized Brigades alongside SS11-armed missile tank destroyers on the same chassis (two pl 90mm, one pl SS11). In the first function, it was replaced by Milan, in the second by an upgrade to HOT (from SS11) and manual TOW launchers (KanJgPz with 90mm removed).

Rheinmetall also tried to sell what was effectively a towed AT gun variant of it back in the 60s, but no one bought that.
In the 80s, there were trials at a Marder armed with an "overslung" 105mm as a possible light escort tank and cavalry scout vehicle, with one alternative also tested being a Marder with an "overslung" 57mm automatic gun and a ATGM launcher.

The only AT guns used by the Bundeswehr were M40A2 106mm recoilless rifles (deployed on jeeps or "mule"-style light vehicles). Survived till the mid-80s in the territorial army, when they were replaced by platoons filled with upgraded 105mm-armed M48A2G2 or 90mm-armed M48A2C and KanJgPz.

[ArtyEngineer]

Misha

Oh, that. I've understood it's a fine piece. Even though wikipedia says it has been successfully used in a direct fire role, that function has never popped up as an option when doing battle plans. They have always been considerd far more uselful in their intended role.

I remember discussing the option once during an excercise - even then the subject was whether gun crew should even try direct fire if about to be crushed by tanks - and came up with the conclusion that they'd better run to the woods and try to get a hold of some LAW's.

Here is an extract from FM 6-50 Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for teh Field Artillery Cannon Battery. The Green text pretty much sums it up nicely. Extract follows:

CONDUCT OF THE DEFENSE

3-16. DEFENSE AGAINST ENEMY ARMOR/MECHANIZED FORCE
a. If an enemy armor or mechanized force detects the battery or its platoons, the enemy can be expected to take the following actions:

(1) Tanks may assault in an attempt to breach or overrun the firing battery positions.

(2) Threat assault vehicles will maneuver to good standoff fighting positions to fire antitank guided missiles (ATGMs), direct fire cannons, and crew-served machine guns.

(3) These actions will be followed by a hasty mounted or dismounted attack through the battery area.

b. The preferred defense against a armor or mechanized ground attack is for the battery or platoon to move to a position from which it can continue the fire support mission (alternate position) without a direct confrontation with the enemy. However, in some circumstances fighting an enemy mechanized force may be unavoidable. Some combat-proven rules for fighting mechanized forces are as follows:

(1) Separate the infantry from the tanks.

(2) Slow down the tanks. Use smoke mixed with HE to obscure the enemy's vision and keep tanks buttoned up.

(3) Canalize tanks into predetermined engagement areas by using obstacles and fire support means.

(4) Use antitank weapons. (Rehearse tank-killer teams.)

Direct fire engagements must be controlled. The unit SOP must address who controls the fires, how to control the fires, and how to mass the direct fire assets. Units may consider self-illumination during periods of limited visibility.


In summary, Enemy Armor = Get the Hell out of dodge!!!!

Regards

Arty

[1979]

whit in all rules there are exceptions.
For instance the Romanian peoples 2nd army " Moldova " had 3 AT regiments ( one for each maneuver division ).
according to the soviet doctrine at the time, they were going to be used together with Mobile obstacle detachments ( engineers) . Basically you build a minefield and cover it with AT fire.

[Damac]

My first training, and my love, was as an anti tank rocketman/assaultman (MOS 0351) and then as a wire guided anti tank missleman (never got the MOS but it would have been (0352). It's been a long long while but some of the old knowledge might help in answering some of the question.

As has been stated, anti tank guns are near useless in the offensive. That's a primary limiter. They're also disadvantaged in the defensive since they're fixed in place and hard to move quickly enough to matter once the shooting starts. All that's been well covered in comments already.

The primary advantages of missiles are:
1. Ease of training. The things are wicked easy to learn to use. The old Dragon, which I trained on was a pain in the arse due to how the gunner had to aim with his body movements until the missile impacted, and by how it was easy for a tired or frightened gunner to fixate on the maneuver rockets of the missile with his sight, rather than his target, but the newer missile systems don't have those issues.
2. Ubiquity of availability. I'm not sure how the US Army did it, but in the USMC, every grunt battalion had a platoon of missile gunners. At division level, there was TOW gunners mounted in jeeps.

This was supplemented with every rifle company having a section of assaultmen in it's own weapons company. The LAAW was nearly useless against modern armor and the training was more about "swarm fire" to try for a main gun or mobility kill, but it was still something enemy armor would have to worry about.

The assaultmen in the company would be backed up by a section of medium ranged (Dragon) missile gunners. A section was 13 men and each carried either one or two missiles, depending on armor threat, terrain and other necessary load requirements. So, each rifle company could have 13 to 26 medium range missiles backing them up. The TOWs covered primary routes of advance with long range missiles.

In the defensive, missiles could easily be pushed forward and "bunkered" for quick availability for the gunners on the line.

Our training was to have up to three connected firing positions/fighting holes, each covering a different access of approach, and each with at least one fall back position. In best terrain, and with enough time, the positions would be connected with trenches, but usually, the idea was to use the terrain to mask/cover movement from pos to pos. So, each gunner could cover a variety of areas.

Now, if defending, that's a lot of missile power per rifle company.

Also, all anti tank infantry were trained in Close Assault Anti Armor. That'd be messy, and casualties would be high, but when push comes to shove...options get short and you do what can... at least in theory. Never had to actually try it for reals, thank God.

In the attack, that's still decent missile availability for bunker busting, cracking open houses, ect.

And, if there's no need for the missiles, the anti tank platoon was usable as standard infantry.

Now, sure, in some instances, the line company(ies) may be overwhelmed by shear numbers of enemy armor. In such cases, helicopters with anti tank munitions, air craft with anti tank munitions, and on call arty, as well as the occasional tank, would be on hand to thin the herd.

[FOG3]

What happened to the old and reliable AT gun?

The antitank gun was an initial solution to the problem of providing Infantry with an inexpensive means to combat a tank.

The closest I've seen to a modern version of the concept tends to be classed as either a airborne tank, Mobile Gun System, Future Combat Systems, or similar with the principle that better sensors and fire control systems versus opponents compensate for lack of armor, and a lighter platform is both a lesser logistical burden and can more easily be made difficult for the enemy to target thus aiding the range differential. These however are more along the lines of a evolved Tank Destroyer theory then antitank guns which were an early inexpensive answer to the question of what a Infantry unit does when it comes up against tanks.

The Answer in WW1 was to simply issue armor piercing ammo. When Germany invaded France in WW2 the concept was already showing itself long in the tooth when Rommel found himself needing to repurpose Luftwaffe 88mm Antiair guns to deal with the Matilda, whose armor isn't what you'd call extraordinarily thick by modern standards.

The US' solution to that question is a combination of antitank missiles of various sizes, and vehicles with a respectable autocannon to ease dealing with lesser AFVs that also happens to be tied into the network to ease delivery of precise artillery and air strikes. These solutions have a significant advantage in that they are not specialized for a very specific task, but multimission, and thus simplify the logistical problem and aid flexibility of operations.

With modern cluster munitions like the SFW it is a valid question whether it's even possible for someone to mass tanks in an assault and have them be more then targets unless they can effect some sort of air supremacy. And if one is in the defensive how making life hell for the attacker is easier with a antitank gun then antitank missiles, ignoring things like M21 Sniper would bring up like sniping the driver through the viewport, which has little to do with what you're talking about.

The aforementioned evolved Tank Destroyers on the other hand represent a desire to be able to get tank equivalents to where you need them faster and/or cheaper. At 20 tons you can ship seven FCS for the assets of two Abrams, if they're weight instead of space limited which should tend to be the case. Because they burn less fuel due to having to heave less weight around, that logistical trail is eased, which means you can hit the build up threshold faster and with less expense associated with shipping assets. The problem is while they're good in the paradigm of getting in, smashing a conventional military, and leaving, they're not so good if you have to deal with extended guerrilla conflicts where they're of thin skin and limited purpose.

[zraver]

With modern cluster munitions like the SFW it is a valid question whether it's even possible for someone to mass tanks in an assault and have them be more then targets unless they can effect some sort of air supremacy.

Air supremcy, enemy artillery supression superior C4SRI dominance. Having these three in hand moves the local battle for both sides to the realm of the tactical, but the side with control of the three is also acting as part of an operational plan not just purely local.

[kato]

the Matilda, whose armor isn't what you'd call extraordinarily thick by modern standards.

Actually, the armor of the Matilda was as thick as that of postwar standard tanks till the late 70s that weighed 15-20 tons more than the Matilda. It just wasn't sloped. Or made of modern materials.

[USSWisconsin]

Actually, the armor of the Matilda was as thick as that of postwar standard tanks till the late 70s that weighed 15-20 tons more than the Matilda. It just wasn't sloped. Or made of modern materials.

It was about 3" thick, which was impenetrable to the German's standard "door knocker" 37mm ATG. The French Char B had the same amount of armor, but was not employed effectively so it didn't make the same impression as the Matilda II.

[zraver]

It was about 3" thick, which was impenetrable to the German's standard "door knocker" 37mm ATG. The French Char B had the same amount of armor, but was not employed effectively so it didn't make the same impression as the Matilda II.

The Char B made a big impression on the Germans. Properly handled and in mass it might have stopped the Panzers. What made the Matalida famous wasn't the German 37mm door knocker, but the Italian M11/39 and M13/40 which got creamed in the Lybian desert. For awahile the Matilda II was known as the queen of the desert. Then Rommel showed up with 88mm flak guns. The tanks slow speed and poor mobility was a disaster in the often excellent visibility of the desert. It prevented a rapid advance giving the germans time to respond and also could not hit back at range.

[USSWisconsin]

The Char B made a big impression on the Germans. Properly handled and in mass it might have stopped the Panzers. What made the Matalida famous wasn't the German 37mm door knocker, but the Italian M11/39 and M13/40 which got creamed in the Lybian desert. For awahile the Matilda II was known as the queen of the desert. Then Rommel showed up with 88mm flak guns. The tanks slow speed and poor mobility was a disaster in the often excellent visibility of the desert. It prevented a rapid advance giving the germans time to respond and also could not hit back at range.

Yes, the desert battles were very interesting, a favorite subject, I used to do miniture wargaming of that period. The Italians vs the British was one of the most fun to wargame (easy terrain too), provided the British didn't get too many Matilda's... The French against the Germans using all that French armor usually gamed out differently than the historical outcome. The door knocker got a lot more criticism against the Soviets, when it met up with T-34's and KV-1's. The Char B had lots of potential, as did the Somua tanks, which also had enough armor to turn away the 37mm from most angles. That M11/39 was a real winner, a 37mm in the hull and mgs in a little turret, and armor that could handle rifle fire all around or a front on anti-tank rifle... The Italians had some useful light artillery and their 75mm field gun could be effective against light tanks.