T-95 baby

[S2]

Double Edge Reply

"Does the bolded bit become redundant when there are man portable 'fire & forget' ATGM's ?"

No. RPG-2 was man-portable and lethal to an earlier generation of armor. It was also prolifically available. Why didn't it dominate those battlefields? Or SAGGER?

Conversely, why did they achieve shock, surprise and destruction on notable occasions?

I'd submit the key remains the proper reconnaissance of the modern battlefield by covering forces coupled with adroit handling of the main force through the course of intended offensive/defensive operations.

The combined arms team is no tired maxim that's been relegated into historical trivia.

Further, there's a reason these ATGM systems are touted as cost-effective equalizers. "Cost effective" is code for unarmored, marginally-mobile and SOFT. If they can be seen, they can be hit. If hit, they will be destroyed.

"Knowing your opponent & proper planning would make things more manageable, as you said that's what the pro's are for:)"

Pretty much what I've been saying. Any ambush is lethal when stumbled upon unprepared. That includes anti-armor ambushes or even prepared defenses incorporating these systems as critical elements.

Woe be those who turn their backs on the fundamentals of war-fighting. They deserve all that's coming. The war-gods are very unforgiving.

[USSWisconsin]

Perhaps a MRLS type barrage with air burst frag bombets over the areas where the ATGM's setup or a similar air delivery?

[S2]

USSWisconsin Reply

"Perhaps a MRLS type barrage with air burst frag bombets over the areas where the ATGM's setup or a similar air delivery?"

Sure. All things are possible once you know for certain where they're set up.

That's the hard part.

Secondly, there's usually more targets than ammo. Even soft targets aren't fully soft. They'll dig in...try to construct overhead cover, and do so to some extent. How much ammo does it take and what's the value/ability of the attacked target to interfere with the mission?

I only care about those systems that have a direct impact upon my mission intent. I don't have enough ammunition nor time to systematically destroy each position before me.

MRLS? Not likely. Area system for a point target(s). The munition is fine. The delivery means, however, might be reserved by a higher echelon for counter-battery or SEAD mission.

Think of the old socialist maxim-"From each according to his ability to each according to his need".;)

[Albany Rifles]

Seems to be a Swiss Centurion taking a hit from the BILL ATGM

It is actually a Swedish TD (TD-90 or something like that) being hit by a BILL 2 ATGM. Its a sales video. I was sent the same about 6 months ago. Knew it was BS right away (the wrods nayway) for most of the same reasons BR mentions.

And you pound the snot out of areas which are expected to have ATGMs with fires ahead of time based on IPB...and have the Infantry clear them.

Basic combined arms warfare.

[USSWisconsin]

"Perhaps a MRLS type barrage with air burst frag bombets over the areas where the ATGM's setup or a similar air delivery?"

Sure. All things are possible once you know for certain where they're set up.

That's the hard part.

Secondly, there's usually more targets than ammo. Even soft targets aren't fully soft. They'll dig in...try to construct overhead cover, and do so to some extent. How much ammo does it take and what's the value/ability of the attacked target to interfere with the mission?

I only care about those systems that have a direct impact upon my mission intent. I don't have enough ammunition nor time to systematically destroy each position before me.

MRLS? Not likely. Area system for a point target(s). The munition is fine. The delivery means, however, might be reserved by a higher echelon for counter-battery or SEAD mission.

Think of the old socialist maxim-"From each according to his ability to each according to his need".;)

Thank You S2, it is wonderful to have such experience to learn from. :)

[Chogy]

Agree... this:

"Cost effective" is code for unarmored, marginally-mobile and SOFT.

is a single-sentence summary for pretty much ANY weapons' acquisition, not just armor. Cost-effective aircraft are like the F-20. Looks good on paper, but the reality would have been far different.

[zraver]

It is actually a Swedish TD (TD-90 or something like that) being hit by a BILL 2 ATGM.

The only Swedish TD I know of is the IKV 91 and the profile doesn't match. The IKV 91 has a very small turret. on a very wide low hull. However the profile seems to match for a Centurion or Stridsvagn 101, 102 and 104 through 106 series.

[zraver]

"Does the bolded bit become redundant when there are man portable 'fire & forget' ATGM's ?"

No. RPG-2 was man-portable and lethal to an earlier generation of armor. It was also prolifically available. Why didn't it dominate those battlefields? Or SAGGER?

Conversely, why did they achieve shock, surprise and destruction on notable occasions?

Strangely when comparing the effectiveness of ATGM's vs then current tanks the AT-3 has the most effective combat record. The TOW might a higher kill percentage, but hasn't really faced off against modern armorwhere we can document it. Iran's use of the missile vs Iraqi armor is a largely undocumented area.

I will say that man portable AT weapons have a huge ability to be devestatign weapons when properly employed. The Battle of Berlin gave every advantage but terrain and the panzerfuast to the Soviets. Soviet losses in two weeks were absolutely horrible. They lost almost 1 in 3 tanks in about 2 1/2 weeks of fighting, most of them in the built up urban areas of the city where the tank hunters had cover and density or weapons.

2006 saw a sort of repeat with PoG's heavy use of ATGM's from fortified areas whose extended range removed the need for tight confines. Luckily armor technology has outpaced armor killing technology. Even PoG's best weapons had a lower kill rate than the Egyptian AT-3's did in the Sinai.

[tankie]

Seems to be a Swiss Centurion taking a hit from the BILL ATGM

Looks a lot like an early mark cent .

[Albany Rifles]

The only Swedish TD I know of is the IKV 91 and the profile doesn't match. The IKV 91 has a very small turret. on a very wide low hull. However the profile seems to match for a Centurion or Stridsvagn 101, 102 and 104 through 106 series.

Stridsvagn 101, 102 and 104 through 106 series.

I think it was one of these....trying to do it from memory.

Didn't have these with me...

US ARMY ARMORED VEHICLE RECOGNITION STUDY CARDS 1984 | eBay

[S2]

Zraver Reply

"I will say that man portable AT weapons have a huge ability to be devestatign weapons when properly employed. The Battle of Berlin gave every advantage but terrain and the panzerfuast to the Soviets. Soviet losses in two weeks were absolutely horrible. They lost almost 1 in 3 tanks in about 2 1/2 weeks of fighting, most of them in the built up urban areas of the city where the tank hunters had cover and density or weapons.

2006 saw a sort of repeat with PoG's heavy use of ATGM's from fortified areas whose extended range removed the need for tight confines. Luckily armor technology has outpaced armor killing technology. Even PoG's best weapons had a lower kill rate than the Egyptian AT-3's did in the Sinai."

I will agree on both counts but also argue that, in the case of Berlin, the Soviets were dealing with the latest models of panzerfausts/panzerschreks, a motivated defender, and optimal defensive conditions. One may or may not also question whether the Soviet tank-infantry team operated in a coordinated, professional fashion. That may have varied depending upon the specific unit.

WRT to Lebanon, 2006, there's evidence the Israelis did a very poor job conducting the IPB prior to entry and, again, played into the defenders' hands. Both the channelizing nature of the avenues of approach along with the available natural and man-made cover and concealment also worked to the defenders' advantage.

We Were Caught Unprepared-2006 Israeli War does a good job of summarizing many of the issues and mistakes made by Israeli tactical commanders.

I feel strongly that the modern combined arms team still holds the advantages here. Even when faced by a determined and professionally-led ATGM-based defense, I'd submit this would hold. Right now, there's simply not enough solid battlefield data evaluating modern weapon systems to make a definitive assertion. Further, even the anecdotal evidence is sparse given the paucity of circumstances and wide variance to troop quality on both sides.

Maybe I'm simply biased against a cheap system that levels the playing field for the part-time non-professional but, until proven otherwise, I'll place my faith in the combined arms team approach to defense against ATGM attack.

[Double Edge]

Am gonna 'wing it' with this one :)

"Does the bolded bit become redundant when there are man portable 'fire & forget' ATGM's ?"

No. RPG-2 was man-portable and lethal to an earlier generation of armor. It was also prolifically available. Why didn't it dominate those battlefields? Or SAGGER?

This link says SAGGER was very effective during the Yom Kippur war.

RPG-2 though is something that approaches what i was thinking about, its light, simple, cheap and with the tanks of its time could have been effective. But the downside with it is range (upto 150m and 100m if moving) so would require the crew to get much closer and expose themselves.

Was thinking with more advanced ATGM's they'd be much further off, let off a few rounds and scatter then let a few more off etc. Which brings me to the next point if the ATGM crews keep shifting all over the battle field, how do you track them.

If they're on foot then maybe you just saturate the last known area the missile orignated from and hope for the best ?

Conversely, why did they achieve shock, surprise and destruction on notable occasions?

Not sure i follow this one. Do you mean the tanks acheived this over the ATGM crews ?

If so the tech used wasn't advanced enough for ATGMs to win over your tactics.

Further, there's a reason these ATGM systems are touted as cost-effective equalizers. "Cost effective" is code for unarmored, marginally-mobile and SOFT. If they can be seen, they can be hit. If hit, they will be destroyed.

Exactly, this is why was thinking putting more distance between could be a leveller.

"Knowing your opponent & proper planning would make things more manageable, as you said that's what the pro's are for:)"

Pretty much what I've been saying. Any ambush is lethal when stumbled upon unprepared. That includes anti-armor ambushes or even prepared defenses incorporating these systems as critical elements.

Woe be those who turn their backs on the fundamentals of war-fighting. They deserve all that's coming. The war-gods are very unforgiving.

Yep

[S2]

Double Edge Reply

"Not sure i follow this one. Do you mean the tanks acheived this over the ATGM crews ?"

Sorry for being unclear. No. I mean ATGMs. I submit the success enjoyed by Egyptian ATGM teams during Yom Kippur trace to the Israeli failures understanding the Egyptian organization for combat and how that would play out in the Sinai. Secondly, remember that Egyptian infantry operated in the Sinai as a combined arms team also. While Israel may have neglected many of the rules regarding suppression of enemy anti-tank defenses, they'd also not adequately suppressed the Egyptian tactical SAM belt sufficient to permit their CAS to assist suppression of the ATGMS. Nor did Israelis use their divisional artillery and mounted infantry effectively to the same end.

"This link says SAGGER was very effective during the Yom Kippur war."

I'm sure it does.

I hope you'll grant that I'm VERY aware of those battles and how they unfolded. It's fair to say that SAGGER's effectiveness was dramatically degraded as Israel re-learned the harsh lessons of combined arms cooperation.

"Was thinking with more advanced ATGM's they'd be much further off, let off a few rounds and scatter then let a few more off etc. Which brings me to the next point if the ATGM crews keep shifting all over the battle field, how do you track them"

Why do you persist in seeing this as two systems-tanks and ATGMs- in isolation. ATGMs fire. Their signature is detected by overwatch elements who immediately engage with highly accurate high velocity fire.

They scatter? In what? Tracked armored vehicles? Now what is the cost of that cheap equalizer? BTW, are they not tracked by their heat signature, dust cloud or more as they displace? Some certainly are...and engaged and destroyed.

What if those ATGMs are detected before engagement by reconnaissance patrols and/or technical means. Are they now vulnerable to artillery? Dismounted infantry attacks? Do they have infantry support? Night vision? I've a million questions that qualify the circumstances you wish to promote but, trust me, there are answers to damn near all conditions with forewarned knowledge.

Key remains, as always, understanding the enemy, battlefield (terrain, weather, engineer emplaced enhancements), and available friendly forces.

[zraver]

I feel strongly that the modern combined arms team still holds the advantages here.

I don't dissagree 95% of the time.

Even when faced by a determined and professionally-led ATGM-based defense, I'd submit this would hold.

Iraqi attack on US SF troops was stopped by Javelin ATGM's in 03 IIRC. Also IIRC the German officiers in charge of defending West Germany and filled with WWII expertise felt the territorials using inter-locking ATGM feilds would ahve severly slowed the Soviets.

[S2]

Zraver Reply

"Iraqi attack on US SF troops was stopped by Javelin ATGM's in 03 IIRC. Also IIRC the German officiers in charge of defending West Germany and filled with WWII expertise felt the territorials using inter-locking ATGM feilds would ahve severly slowed the Soviets."

I'm unclear of your intent if concurring that a well-balanced combined arms mix is the proper basis against an ATGM-intensive defense 95% of the time. Wouldn't you therefore agree that working the edges above requires much more context in both cases if there are valid lessons to be learned?