Anti Tank missiles

[Kyle Holgate]

I've been mucking about with both the latest Combat mission strike force game and more often Steel Panthers Main battle tank (CMSF and SPMBT). My biggest problem with moving from WW2 to modern combat is the &%$#! anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). In WW2 you can generally keep the infantry with the tanks and spot anti-tank forces with bazooka, Piat, Panzerfausts, etc. and deal with them. Further you can blast the area you're about to drive tanks into with artillery (if ya got it).

Move to modern day... Both on attack and defense the infantry now have the ability to KO a tank from pretty long range. No longer is infantry near the tank enough to protect it. No longer can you suppress AT infantry very effectively with artillery, as the zone that they can inhabit and still threaten your armored fighting vehicles (AFV's) is very wide. On offense they can sneak up in cover and spot a defending tank from fairly far out and KO it.

Some MBT's are tough enough to handle a missile or two. Often these damage the tank though, at least optics or guns - and it's useless.

I'm mostly a navy man - but I'll crawl in the dirt once in a while! Do ATGM's for the most part make tanks obsolete? Fighting in Iraq the insurgents use pazerfausts on steroids (Rocket Propelled Grenades/RPGs) which you can counter with similar tactics to those used in WW2 - infantry support and arty.

How do the armies of the world and the marines deal with ATGM's? Put infantry way, way out front before the tanks come in? That seems to me to defeat the very purpose of the tank.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I've been mucking about with both the latest Combat mission strike force game and more often Steel Panthers Main battle tank (CMSF and SPMBT). My biggest problem with moving from WW2 to modern combat is the &%$#! anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM). In WW2 you can generally keep the infantry with the tanks and spot anti-tank forces with bazooka, Piat, Panzerfausts, etc. and deal with them. Further you can blast the area you're about to drive tanks into with artillery (if ya got it).

Move to modern day... Both on attack and defense the infantry now have the ability to KO a tank from pretty long range. No longer is infantry near the tank enough to protect it. No longer can you suppress AT infantry very effectively with artillery, as the zone that they can inhabit and still threaten your armored fighting vehicles (AFV's) is very wide. On offense they can sneak up in cover and spot a defending tank from fairly far out and KO it.

Some MBT's are tough enough to handle a missile or two. Often these damage the tank though, at least optics or guns - and it's useless.

I'm mostly a navy man - but I'll crawl in the dirt once in a while! Do ATGM's for the most part make tanks obsolete? Fighting in Iraq the insurgents use pazerfausts on steroids (Rocket Propelled Grenades/RPGs) which you can counter with similar tactics to those used in WW2 - infantry support and arty.

How do the armies of the world and the marines deal with ATGM's? Put infantry way, way out front before the tanks come in? That seems to me to defeat the very purpose of the tank.

Kyle:

I can't speak for modern ATGMs, Mike Synder or Mike M or William can probably do a better job, but the US army felt that had the Israelis used combined arms teams in the Yom Kippur War, they probably could have reduced their tank losses (although later after action reports show that the bulk of the tank losses came from tank gunfire).

I would be more afraid of ATGMs launched from attack choppers or dedicated vehicles than I would from those launched by infantry. The better ATGMs are not easy to conceal and have a nice launch signature that might give a tank the chance to fire on the laucher team. I would be more afraid in an urban environment where places of concealment abound. I guessit depends on how Steel Panthers models these weapons.

[Warship NWS]

A lot depends on the tactical situation and with the advent of more accurate and lethal ATRs and newer generations of self-guided ATGMs firing back at a launching team is going to be a much tougher problem. Infantry has always been, and likely always will be, the best defense against infantry anti-tank teams if for no other reason, their perception of battlefield awareness compared to tankers buttoned up in an armored rolling box with a limited field of view. Also, it does not help that a tank, especially when on the move, is easier to spot then anti-tank teams looking to assassinate your tanks from possibly hidden and/or prepared defensive positions. Tankers can go "un-buttoned" but then the crews are exposed to small arms fire and snipers.

[Kyle Holgate]

In SPMBT you sometimes get to fire at ATGM crews before the missile hits, sometimes not. It seems to depend on the distance. In CMSF the ranges are typically short enough that by the time you react the missile is on the target. The crew that fired it can then be brought under fire, but as you'd expect it usually doesn't stick around where it fired from very long!
Infantry appears to remain the best defense against ATGM's as it is vs the shorter ranged RPG type weapons and other short ranged anti-armor stuff. Problem is, to counter the ATGM's you have to put your infantry much further out - where it is less able to be protected by the tanks or other AFVs. The infantry now is subject to more fire from enemy infantry and machine guns - and you cannot bring a tank or other AFV up to deal with the threat without exposing it to ATGM's that are probably hiding around waiting for just that. Best bet (if you have time) is to locate the enemy troops and infantry then pull back and plaster them with arty fire. Hope you get any ATGM crews lurking about too!
No good answers, that's for sure.
Ed, even the smaller squad level ATGM's like the Dragons will often damage a tank. Much like in discussions about mission kills of a warship - once that tank has lost the optics, main gun, track - it's about as useful as it would be if destroyed. Maybe less, you could at least roast marshmallows on the KO'd tank!

[William Miller]

Gents,

I would not discount man-portable systems --cutting-edge man-portable weapon systems like the FIM-148 'Javelin' are a serious threat to even the most modern AFVs. When you put a 'fire-and-forget', highly accurate, advanced tandem warhead-equipped, able to fire in almost any environment weapon that can engage out to 2500m in the hands of an even half-way competent defense force you are likely to cause -serious- damage to an attacking force.

Indeed the attacker currently has a problem in attempts to keep this type of advanced MP systems from engaging him, as Kyle rightly pointed out. There are no easy answers to this issue, and it takes a professional, well-coordinated combined arms approach to even partially negate them. However, IMHO, the best way to counter these types of systems should not primarily or only be in the area of tactics (although proper tactics are important and will help cope, to a degree) but in the area of developing active defense measures against them. This means developing the technology for systems to both shoot down the missiles and to deceive/counter/negate the missiles tracking systems. These types of defensive systems/technology really are in the early stages of development right now and will take some time to mature and be effective.

[Ed Rotondaro]

In SPMBT you sometimes get to fire at ATGM crews before the missile hits, sometimes not. It seems to depend on the distance. In CMSF the ranges are typically short enough that by the time you react the missile is on the target. The crew that fired it can then be brought under fire, but as you'd expect it usually doesn't stick around where it fired from very long!
Infantry appears to remain the best defense against ATGM's as it is vs the shorter ranged RPG type weapons and other short ranged anti-armor stuff. Problem is, to counter the ATGM's you have to put your infantry much further out - where it is less able to be protected by the tanks or other AFVs. The infantry now is subject to more fire from enemy infantry and machine guns - and you cannot bring a tank or other AFV up to deal with the threat without exposing it to ATGM's that are probably hiding around waiting for just that. Best bet (if you have time) is to locate the enemy troops and infantry then pull back and plaster them with arty fire. Hope you get any ATGM crews lurking about too!
No good answers, that's for sure.
Ed, even the smaller squad level ATGM's like the Dragons will often damage a tank. Much like in discussions about mission kills of a warship - once that tank has lost the optics, main gun, track - it's about as useful as it would be if destroyed. Maybe less, you could at least roast marshmallows on the KO'd tank!

Kyle:

It was US Army doctrine in the 1980s for the infantry to go for mobility kills if using the one-shot LAW rockets. The tracks are always vulerable and a tank with a damaged track is an expensive pillbox with a short life expectancy on the battlefield.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Gents,

I would not discount man-portable systems --cutting-edge man-portable weapon systems like the FIM-148 'Javelin' are a serious threat to even the most modern AFVs. When you put a 'fire-and-forget', highly accurate, advanced tandem warhead-equipped, able to fire in almost any environment weapon that can engage out to 2500m in the hands of an even half-way competent defense force you are likely to cause -serious- damage to an attacking force.

Indeed the attacker currently has a problem in attempts to keep this type of advanced MP systems from engaging him, as Kyle rightly pointed out. There are no easy answers to this issue, and it takes a professional, well-coordinated combined arms approach to even partially negate them. However, IMHO, the best way to counter these types of systems should not primarily or only be in the area of tactics (although proper tactics are important and will help cope, to a degree) but in the area of developing active defense measures against them. This means developing the technology for systems to both shoot down the missiles and to deceive/counter/negate the missiles tracking systems. These types of defensive systems/technology really are in the early stages of development right now and will take some time to mature and be effective.

William:

What about the effects of advanced composite armors against these missiles? Supposedly the frontal armor of an Abrams is proof against any known ATGM using a HEAT warhead. I realize the flanks and top of the tank are still vulnerable, but most tanks get hit in the frontal arc on an open battlefield.

Would some sort of CIWS like we see on warships be the answer to ATGMs? Of course this raises the weight and height of the tank. Not to mention cost.

[Kyle Holgate]

William:

What about the effects of advanced composite armors against these missiles? Supposedly the frontal armor of an Abrams is proof against any known ATGM using a HEAT warhead. I realize the flanks and top of the tank are still vulnerable, but most tanks get hit in the frontal arc on an open battlefield.

Would some sort of CIWS like we see on warships be the answer to ATGMs? Of course this raises the weight and height of the tank. Not to mention cost.

Some Israeli Merkava tanks were hit by ATGM's in Lebanon when they went after Hesbola a while back and did ok. Similarly Challenger tanks have shrugged off hits by ATGM warheads also. Now granted, these were not the top attack ones that are used by many in the western nations now, nor were they the bigger TOW types - still - the armor defeated the heat warheads.
There are a few anti ATGM systems out there - the Germans have one, the Russians, others. Do they work? How well? Better than nothing probably, and I'd bet they'll get better.

[john964]

Some Israeli Merkava tanks were hit by ATGM's in Lebanon when they went after Hesbola a while back and did ok. Similarly Challenger tanks have shrugged off hits by ATGM warheads also. Now granted, these were not the top attack ones that are used by many in the western nations now, nor were they the bigger TOW types - still - the armor defeated the heat warheads.
There are a few anti ATGM systems out there - the Germans have one, the Russians, others. Do they work? How well? Better than nothing probably, and I'd bet they'll get better.Kyle more than likely Hezboalla was using RPG-7. The weapon is roughly equal to the US LAW in range and hitting power. The RPG is almost incapable of killing a tank unless hit from the top. By firing from the upper floors of a building. The RPG is more than capable of disabling a tank by either tracking it or if they manage to get a shot at the engine compartment, but that is about all. I remember reading about a tank that was knocked out during the 'Thunder Runs' the Iraqies fired 3-400 RPG's at it and only managed to disable it by damageing the engine, the crew was rescued unharmed and the US forces distroyed the tank so it would not fall in to Iraqie hands

[Warship NWS]

In the last battle between the Hezboalla and the Isrealis some Merkavas were hit by AT-14 Kornet missiles supplied by the Syrians.

[Mike D]

In the last battle between the Hezboalla and the Isrealis some Merkavas were hit by AT-14 Kornet missiles supplied by the Syrians.

Any info on the results?

[Warship NWS]

Any info on the results?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkava

Check under combat history.. obviously you will have to develop your own conclusions based on whatever sources they checked for the information.

[William Miller]

William:

What about the effects of advanced composite armors against these missiles? Supposedly the frontal armor of an Abrams is proof against any known ATGM using a HEAT warhead. I realize the flanks and top of the tank are still vulnerable, but most tanks get hit in the frontal arc on an open battlefield.

Would some sort of CIWS like we see on warships be the answer to ATGMs? Of course this raises the weight and height of the tank. Not to mention cost.

Ed,

The Javelin has a pop-up attack mode available so it strikes the turret top or upper deck of the tank where the armor is thinner. The missile also has a precusor warhead to strip off reactive armor and/or to help increase penetration, and the rumored Block 2 missile version is to have a triple-tandem warhead. The (current) Block 1 Javelin warhead has a net penetration of at least 800mm RHA, which is likely to punch through the top of any current armored vehicle even if it has decent reactive armor.

There appears to be two approaches that show promise in the stopping of ATGM before they can even begin to penetrate a target:

1) Some sort of electro-plasma armor/layer/plating that disrupts the HEAT jet or causes the warhead to otherwise malfunction. Supposedly the Israelis have tested such a system.
2) Shotgun/claymore-ish system that shreds the warhead before it can detonate. Early versions of these systems are being tested or are entering limited service, such as the Russian Shtora, the Israeli TROPHY, and the US 'Quick kill' systems.

Here is test-video footage of the US 'Quick Kill' system doing its thing (circa late 2006 IIRC):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgWywHPVzMg

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

The Javelin has a pop-up attack mode available so it strikes the turret top or upper deck of the tank where the armor is thinner. The missile also has a precusor warhead to strip off reactive armor and/or to help increase penetration, and the rumored Block 2 missile version is to have a triple-tandem warhead. The (current) Block 1 Javelin warhead has a net penetration of at least 800mm RHA, which is likely to punch through the top of any current armored vehicle even if it has decent reactive armor.

There appears to be two approaches that show promise in the stopping of ATGM before they can even begin to penetrate a target:

1) Some sort of electro-plasma armor/layer/plating that disrupts the HEAT jet or causes the warhead to otherwise malfunction. Supposedly the Israelis have tested such a system.
2) Shotgun/claymore-ish system that shreds the warhead before it can detonate. Early versions of these systems are being tested or are entering limited service, such as the Russian Shtora, the Israeli TROPHY, and the US 'Quick kill' systems.

Here is test-video footage of the US 'Quick Kill' system doing its thing (circa late 2006 IIRC):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgWywHPVzMg

William:

Thanks for the details. I had read about the electro-magnetic armor. I believe a Canadian firm or British firm has been developing it and it appears to hold promise. Trophy is already in service, but I guess the US wants to develop its own system with Quick Kill. The ongoing battle of offensive versus defensive systems is fascinating.

[Mike Malanaphy]

Kyle:

I can't speak for modern ATGMs, Mike Synder or Mike M or William can probably do a better job, but the US army felt that had the Israelis used combined arms teams in the Yom Kippur War, they probably could have reduced their tank losses (although later after action reports show that the bulk of the tank losses came from tank gunfire).

I would be more afraid of ATGMs launched from attack choppers or dedicated vehicles than I would from those launched by infantry. The better ATGMs are not easy to conceal and have a nice launch signature that might give a tank the chance to fire on the laucher team. I would be more afraid in an urban environment where places of concealment abound. I guessit depends on how Steel Panthers models these weapons.

Hi Ed,

A number of good points have been raised here. A lot depends on the type of conflict your in. In a Gulf War I scenario, you had the ability to stand off and shoot at ATGMS outside of their maximum range with fixed and rotory eyes outfront. Your pretty much weapons free in that case. In a low intensity scenario, ranges will be much closer in with a lot of action in built up areas and the risks of collateral damage by using lots of fire power will always be a concern. In those cases, ranges will be almost point blank. Tank crews, even when unbuttoned have terrible visibility, though the new external optics packages are a big help and perhaps even small r/c vehicles can be of great assistance in reconnaissance. With your helmet on and with a couple of radios squawking in your ears plus teh ambient vehicvle noise, your dumb as well.

On the other side of the coin, these missiles are currently very expensive and will not be found in any great density I would suspect in the hands of guerillas and insurgents. Crews are very difficult to spot and once the missile is enroute fire and forget capabilites may be make suppression of the missile's crew a moot point. A better means might be obscuring the missile's guidance system. If it is guided by the MK I eyeball, then smoke from on board systems can be pretty effecttive. Iraqi tanks carried a "dazzler" to defeat incoming ATGMs with little or no success though USMC tanks still carry them.

I suspect passive protection will not be the solution as wieght becomes a huge concern for the vehicle and you can always just make a bigger warhead or bigger IED. Trophy and Quick Kill seem to work, but it can be rough on those outside. Also, maintenace and reliability regarding the radar equipment may have some pitfalls as well.

Against a static enemy such as Hezbollah, maneuver is a better solution. In place, the missiles are hard to detect, but if they have to be moved to face a different threat axis they would be vulnerable. Why the Israeli's ruled out a seaborne end run is not clear, perhaps they don't have the sea capability to move such a heavy force effectively or feared world opinion. The Israeli army is very casualty concious and attacking dug in infantry with out tank support is brutal..which is why they came into being in the first place. We seem to have come full circle. I suspect, that the Merkavas had little or no infantry protection as they were inside for protection from small arms and artillery fire. Like our discussion about a useful patrol craft, it has to be expendable as do land systems. MBTs are sophisticated and expensive systems, but they are not invulnerable. No matter how well protected, tracks and running gear will always be vulnerable to simple explosive devices.

New equipment and systems may help to reduce casualties, but close in combat against a determined foe is always going to be hard.

[Warship NWS]

Lethality vs simplicity..

I think a critical factor in fighting a non-convential war is how low tech enemies can acquire weapons that are getting, over time, easier to use. Example, the AT-3 Sagger is a rather difficult missile to use with a slow flight speed and older aiming devices that require a well trained ATGM gunner to use effectively. As ATGMs get easier to use, and lowered in price with the weapons market competition, their proliferation could become a serious threat to modern armored forces as was proven in recent limited conflicts. Now even low tech enemies that used to rely almost entirely on non-guided RPGs are acquiring longer ranged and more lethal ATGMs from a variety of sources and nations.

The question is now.. can the expense of defensive systems and better armor maintain pace with the proliferation and anti-armor weapons being easier to use and more readily available and how well will the users of such weapons develop their tactics to challenge their better armed opponents.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Lethality vs simplicity..

I think a critical factor in fighting a non-conventional war is how low tech enemies can acquire weapons that are getting, over time, easier to use. Example, the AT-3 Sagger is a rather difficult missile to use with a slow flight speed and older aiming devices that require a well trained ATGM gunner to use effectively. As ATGMs get easier to use, and lowered in price with the weapons market competition, their proliferation could become a serious threat to modern armored forces as was proven in recent limited conflicts. Now even low tech enemies that used to rely almost entirely on non-guided RPGs are acquiring longer ranged and more lethal ATGMs from a variety of sources and nations.

The question is now.. can the expense of defensive systems and better armor maintain pace with the proliferation and anti-armor weapons being easier to use and more readily available and how well will the users of such weapons develop their tactics to challenge their better armed opponents.



I believe we are leaving out geography because there is quite a difference between fighting in and around Lebanon near the Bekaa Valley, or the sands of Iraq and Kuwait and fighting in the mountains, hills and narrow roads of Kosovo or Georgia. Urban warfare is another example of this difference. Irregular, unconventional, guerrilla forces or what ever term you wish to give them, have some definite advantages. They don't have to win, just stay in existence. They don't have to win each battle or any battles, they just need to inflict casualties. Weapons like ATGM's, shoulder fired SAM's, RPG's, light machine guns, assault rifles are all good weapons for these kinds of forces. They rarely stand and fight. Their basic method of defense is to fire and fall back. A fluid type of defense. If the opponent moves back, they move forward. If the opponent leaves the area after the engagement, they return and reestablish their positions.

ATGM's are great weapons. The new ones are simple, effective and easy to fire. Even the updated RPG can be effective in the appropriate terrain or environment. Operations against these types of forces has always been difficult and will get worse. Combined arms is the key to success, not defensive systems for tanks. We can't increase the complexity or weight of the tanks. This will only make them slower and more visible.

The failure by the Israeli's against Hezbollah, was less due to the fighting ability of the Hezbollah forces and more to the failure of the Israeli Defense Forces to read their own manuals. I believe they call it "victory disease". Hezbollah missiles were not that effective, but are given credit for the victory, which they don't deserve.

As far as lethality versus simplicity, only the simple in war works. I don't believe it is necessary to destroy a tank, simply getting a mission kill is sufficient. If a missile system is simple, inexpensive, man-portable but can achieve a high mission kill rate, then it will be a successful weapon.

As far as the qualities:

1. Simple to setup, breakdown and load

2. Easy to sight and maintain target acquisition under different climatic and environmental conditions.

3. High speed to reduce possible opponent reaction time

4. Multiple warheads capable of disabling a tanks at a reasonable range. A reasonable range depends on the terrain and vegetation. This is an important factor. A missile system designed for the Middle East, may have difficulty with Kosovo or a Central asian country.

Just some random thoughts

[Warship NWS]

To Dennis, I think the examples of Vietnam vs USA and Afghanistan vs Russia proved that even the most academic of enemy forces can create havoc on sophisticated combat units with the most simplest of training through the deployment of easy to use, and maintain, weapons. What has made the RPG and AK-47 so lethal? Some silly fool could use it with almost no training and kill or damage an opposing soldier or vehicle that is FAR more expensive to train and deploy. Is it not interesting how the low tech opponents teach their high tech adversaries the value of *cost effectiveness* in a war.

Thanks.

[Kyle Holgate]

With SPMBT at least I have found one trick - useful mainly with modern state of the art fighting forces going up against less technologically advanced. The thing to do is to use any and all artillery to first lay down smoke all over the place. This can't be seen through by the typical squad or ATGM crew, but the MBT's and APC's can spot thorugh it. In addition, some snipers can - and those are quickly getting to be some of my favorite forces.
Barring that, I have gone back to the old "get the bad guy to fire at the scout" trick - 'cept with vehicles. I use low value vehicles and wiggle their back fenders out in the open hoping that I can spot the ATGM crew either preparing to fire or after it's done. I don't know if this is a real world tactic, but it can work. In addition to just spotting them, the ATGM crews don't have huge numbers of missiles to fire so if I can get them to waste it on something not very valuable I may save some tanks or other AFV's for later.

[Ed Rotondaro]

With SPMBT at least I have found one trick - useful mainly with modern state of the art fighting forces going up against less technologically advanced. The thing to do is to use any and all artillery to first lay down smoke all over the place. This can't be seen through by the typical squad or ATGM crew, but the MBT's and APC's can spot thorugh it. In addition, some snipers can - and those are quickly getting to be some of my favorite forces.
Barring that, I have gone back to the old "get the bad guy to fire at the scout" trick - 'cept with vehicles. I use low value vehicles and wiggle their back fenders out in the open hoping that I can spot the ATGM crew either preparing to fire or after it's done. I don't know if this is a real world tactic, but it can work. In addition to just spotting them, the ATGM crews don't have huge numbers of missiles to fire so if I can get them to waste it on something not very valuable I may save some tanks or other AFV's for later.


Kyle:

The increased use of both snipers and designated marksmen reflects the type of low intensity warfare in urban environments. Snipers are being used both for overwatch as well as in the skirmisher role as you are employing them. There have been some concerns from US soldiers stating that the current 5.56mm NATO round is not lethal enough over longer distances. Some gun experts are arguing for a move to a larger hotter caliber such as a 6.8mm round which could still be used in current rifles with minor modifications.