MT-12 100 mm Anti-Tank Gun...mostly harmless?

[danzig5]

Personally I am more interested in the Sprut AT gun. Basically the cannon of a modern Russian tank made into an at gun, with all the fixin's. Sad to see it wasn't included, but I guess Russian didn't bring them to this kind of ultra rapid advance scenario.

[akd]

Personally I am more interested in the Sprut AT gun. Basically the cannon of a modern Russian tank made into an at gun, with all the fixin's. Sad to see it wasn't included, but I guess Russian didn't bring them to this kind of ultra rapid advance scenario.

 

 

Not sure these are actually in service.

Edited January 14, 2015 by akd

[danzig5]

Not sure these are actually in service.

They appear to be but in limited numbers. Like most advanced Russian weapons. The older AT gun MT-12 is still in Russian service as well, although only as a light artillery piece.

Edited January 14, 2015 by danzig5

[John Kettler]

ikalugin,

 

You are absolutely correct. It is indeed a smoothbore weapon. The T-12/MT-12 wasn't something that directly concerned me, for NATO was defending, and the analyses at Hughes were geared toward the TOW ATGM, plus WASP and Assault Breaker for deep interdiction and strike, but I do find it fascinating that the T-62 got a 115 mm smoothbore cannon after the technology was first proven in the T-12/MT-12 100 mm ATG. Appreciate your information. And for a proper sense of what we're talking about for those unfamiliar with this beast (both in size and power), I believe the vid will prove most informative. And it's even shot in Ukraine.

 

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited January 15, 2015 by John Kettler

[dan/california]

Well, if you wanted to start modeling irregulars for the module I have some uniform suggestions.

[ikalugin]

On the assault breakers - did you know, that Soviets were developing (and to an extend deploying) their own reckon/strike and reckon/fire complexes?

[John Kettler]

ikalugin,

 

We were briefed on some shocking Russian military developments at a classified CIA threat conference in 1985. These included mass deployment of laser guided artillery munitions, even a version of Grad, on a scale which beggared description, together with the deployment of what's now called Bazalt, a sophisticated dual seeker SFW. It was explained to us that this arose because the Grad, which was designed specifically to kill the M113 APC (secondarily M60 tanks), couldn't hack it vs the Bradley and Abrams, but the SFW could. Back then, we thought we were the only nation with SFW, so this was a horrible development, for we were already outnumbered and now, were looking at facing force multiplier tech against us in addition. This was also when we found out, in grim detail, just how badly we were overmatched in the armor/antiarmor arena. Part of the 3-day briefing by the Agency's top specialists talked about the development of the Recon Strike Complex, what capabilities there were and where it was going. I was also monitoring what the Russians were saying in their own pubs. When they're extolling the virtues of Assault Breaker based on "the opinions of foreign military experts," they're really talking about having that sort of weapon system for themselves. And what do we see? The BM-27 (with bomblets--Grad equivalent) , BM-30 with bomblets or SFW and its own integrated rocket launched drone! There was also the Tochka/SS-21 with bomblets and the Iskander with bomblets or SFW. By no means a complete breakdown of capabilities, but it gives some idea. And in this time frame the GLONASS system came on line, too, providing the Russians with the capabilities for precision strikes not dependent on the American GPS system.

Here's a study I found on the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) as described by Marshal Ogarkov, who later became Minister of Defense. Just click the cover to get the PDF http://csbaonline.org/publications/2011/06/the-maturing-revolution-in-military-affairs/

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

P.S.

I have no idea how my name became and stayed a hyperlink. Fortunately, it also links to the study above.

Edited January 15, 2015 by John Kettler

[ikalugin]

Well the idea indeed was to use the improved conventional munitions (cluster variants of grad and smerch, I don't think that there was one available for uragan), seaking AT submunutions (delivered by bombs, aforementioned MLRS systems and Oka-U).

However the more important development I think, more or less completely missed by the western specialists, was the deployment of new C3 system - Manevr, as well as a variety of recon assets (BRMs and others) which could interface with it via a data link.

Morever there was ample work on the airborne component too - a JSTAR equivalent (only directly linked via a data sharing network to the C3 system, allowing transmission of radar data down).

[DreDay]

They appear to be but in limited numbers. Like most advanced Russian weapons. The older AT gun MT-12 is still in Russian service as well, although only as a light artillery piece.

 

I am not quite sure as to what you mean by "light artilery piece". MT-12s are deployed in anti-tank battallions (2 battaries - 12 pieces) of Russian Motor-Rifle Brigades along with more modern ATGMS. Their mission is the same as that of ATGMs - to halt the enemy armorded force advance in their deployment area. Now it is true that MT-12s had been deployed in both Chechen conflicts as direct support artillery pieces in order to target individual enemy firing spots; but that was mostly done due to the lack of proper opposition from the Chechen side,,,

[wee]

I am not quite sure as to what you mean by "light artilery piece". MT-12s are deployed in anti-tank battallions (2 battaries - 12 pieces) of Russian Motor-Rifle Brigades along with more modern ATGMS. Their mission is the same as that of ATGMs - to halt the enemy armorded force advance in their deployment area. Now it is true that MT-12s had been deployed in both Chechen conflicts as direct support artillery pieces in order to target individual enemy firing spots; but that was mostly done due to the lack of proper opposition from the Chechen side,,,

 

Is MT-12 capable for practical indirect firemissions? Interweb, including wikipedia says that PG-1M sight is available for indirect firemissions, but maximum elevation of 20 degrees sounds little low for indirect artillery piece? But beign currently a medical nco in reserve and medic/rifleman by conscript training, I far away from artillery expert so I can't be sure.

 

Manufacturers description doesn't say anything about indirect fire with PG-1M sight.

 

http://www.opticoel.com/en/shop/optical-sights-for-artillery-systems/panoramic-periscope-sight-pg-1m/

 

If I remember right, AT-guns are/were used in WP/Russian doctrine to protect the flanks or secondary directions of the unit, to save and concentrate more capable and mobile armored units to the primary direction.

Edited January 17, 2015 by wee

[DreDay]

Is MT-12 capable for practical indirect firemissions? Interweb, including wikipedia says that PG-1M sight is available for indirect firemissions, but maximum elevation of 20 degrees sounds little low for indirect artillery piece? But beign currently a medical nco in reserve and medic/rifleman by conscript training, I far away from artillery expert so I can't be sure.

 

I am certainly not an expert on this either, but I doubt its usefullness as an indirect artillery piece. It's a smoothbore, high velocity AT gun, so I would think that the shell trajectory would be very flat and not well suited for indirect fire role. Besides, I think that we can both agree that one problem the Soviets/Russians have never had is a lack of dedicated indirect artillery pieces.

 

If I remember right, AT-guns are/were used in WP/Russian doctrine to protect the flanks or secondary directions of the unit, to save and concentrate more capable and mobile armored units to the primary direction.

 

That's would certainly make sense, but oddly enough WP/Soviet/Russian doctrine was to deploy the AT units (both guns and ATGMS) in the areas where enemy armored breakthrough was most likely, while their own mobile armor (i.e MBTs) were to be used to advance and to exploit the breakthroughs in enemy defensive lines. It dates all the way back to WW2. Personally, I tend to think that those kinds of tactics are a bit outdated, buth then again - I think that towed AT guns (regardless of their caliber) are completely outdated as well...

Edited January 17, 2015 by DreDay

[wee]

Excellent point DreDay. They must have/had different at-gun tactics for different operations and combat situations.

 

"WP/Soviet/Russian doctrine was to deploy the AT units (both guns and ATGMS) in the areas where enemy armored breakthrough was most likely"

 

Flanks and sides are always potential target for enemy attacks and manouvers. 

 

While the low mobility makes AT-guns obsolete in many ways, they still have ****loads of them in depots and warehouses. Besides, I think that most of the other artillerists can be trained to use them with little or short training. AT-guns are cheap compared to tanks, easily camouflaged and entrenched and accurate for pinpoint firesupport against stationary targets over long distances (like air traffic control towers  ). As a bonus, you get mt-lb with gun if you are lucky, and those things are damn useful and practical for various secondary support roles for the fighting army. Maybe my favourite vehicle in the battlefield and military purposes excluding the fighting and beign under direct fire. 

Edited January 17, 2015 by wee

[ikalugin]

ATGs, ATGMs, mine laying units would form blocking detachments, providing flank security and economy of force missions.

[Sergei]

 

While the low mobility makes AT-guns obsolete in many ways, they still have ****loads of them in depots and warehouses. Besides, I think that most of the other artillerists can be trained to use them with little or short training. AT-guns are cheap compared to tanks, easily camouflaged and entrenched and accurate for pinpoint firesupport against stationary targets over long distances (like air traffic control towers  ). As a bonus, you get mt-lb with gun if you are lucky, and those things are damn useful and practical for various secondary support roles for the fighting army. Maybe my favourite vehicle in the battlefield and military purposes excluding the fighting and beign under direct fire. 

 

The gun itself is cheaper, and easier to maintain, than a tank, for sure. OTOH it requires a larger crew and an artillery tractor, and most of its work can be done by ATGMs far cheaper and way more mobile. ATG still has some benefits over ATGM: undisruptable, higher ROF, not affected by APS and usefulness for indirect support.

[DreDay]

Excellent point DreDay. They must have/had different at-gun tactics for different operations and combat situations.

 

"WP/Soviet/Russian doctrine was to deploy the AT units (both guns and ATGMS) in the areas where enemy armored breakthrough was most likely"

 

Flanks and sides are always potential target for enemy attacks and manouvers. 

 

While the low mobility makes AT-guns obsolete in many ways, they still have ****loads of them in depots and warehouses. Besides, I think that most of the other artillerists can be trained to use them with little or short training. AT-guns are cheap compared to tanks, easily camouflaged and entrenched and accurate for pinpoint firesupport against stationary targets over long distances (like air traffic control towers  ). As a bonus, you get mt-lb with gun if you are lucky, and those things are damn useful and practical for various secondary support roles for the fighting army. Maybe my favourite vehicle in the battlefield and military purposes excluding the fighting and beign under direct fire. 

 

Those are all great points sir. The AT guns can definitely still be a potent threat, espcially when facing less advanced and older armor (i.e. Ukranian Army). For instance, the first combat use of T-64BVs had occured in Trans-Dnestria region of Moldova in 1992. At that time a company of T-64s had attacked a key strategic bridge that was held by Moldovan forces. Two T-64s were completely destroyed and a couple more had suffered serious dammage and had to withdraw within the course of that battle. All of those losses were claimed by a battery (or less) of well deployed MT-12s... Yet I wonder if the results of that battle would have been even more decisive if the Moldovans were to deploy ATGMs in place of AT guns... I also wonder how long those MT-12 crews would have survived if they were to face more advanced tanks with better protection, advanced FC, and decent thermal sites...

[ikalugin]

Those are all great points sir. The AT guns can definitely still be a potent threat, espcially when facing less advanced and older armor (i.e. Ukranian Army). For instance, the first combat use of T-64BVs had occured in Trans-Dnestria region of Moldova in 1992. At that time a company of T-64s had attacked a key strategic bridge that was held by Moldovan forces. Two T-64s were completely destroyed and a couple more had suffered serious dammage and had to withdraw within the course of that battle. All of those losses were claimed by a battery (or less) of well deployed MT-12s... Yet I wonder if the results of that battle would have been even more decisive if the Moldovans were to deploy ATGMs in place of AT guns... I also wonder how long those MT-12 crews would have survived if they were to face more advanced tanks with better protection, advanced FC, and decent thermal sites...

Err I always thought that only 3 tanks participated in the attack, one was knocked out, no crewmen died. 

Moldovans used both ATGs and ATGMs.

[DreDay]

Err I always thought that only 3 tanks participated in the attack, one was knocked out, no crewmen died. 

Moldovans used both ATGs and ATGMs.

 

I am by no means claiming to be an authority on this. I have heard several different accounts of this engagement from both sides and I have quoted the numbers that I consider to be most accurate. I might very well be wrong though... There are other sides to this story that I did not care to elaborate on (i.e. the Trans-Dnestrian T-64s had no MG ammo loaded and quite a few of Moldovan firepoints were supressed by the T-64s in that battle), yet I have never heard about Moldovan ATGMs being used in that particular enagement... Do you happen to have a source for it? I would love to learn more about it.

[ikalugin]

They had MG ammo, they did not have the HMGs installed. This video shows the combat:

[DreDay]

They had MG ammo, they did not have the HMGs installed. This video shows the combat:

 

Right, that's another aspect that I did not want to  get into because I consider it to be way outside the scope of this thread... but I believe that this video shows the action in downtown Bander and not the bridge where most of the T-64 losses had occured. It is also worth noting that these tanks (that were taken over from ex-Soviet 14th Army) were manned by crews that had no time for joint training and they pretty much went into the battle as soon as they were aquired by local militia without any proper pereparation or training...

[ikalugin]

Right, that's another aspect that I did not want to  get into because I consider it to be way outside the scope of this thread... but I believe that this video shows the action in downtown Bander and not the bridge where most of the T-64 losses had occured. It is also worth noting that these tanks (that were taken over from ex-Soviet 14th Army) were manned by crews that had no time for joint training and they pretty much went into the battle as soon as they were aquired by local militia without any proper pereparation or training...

I am aware of 1 burned out tank (crew escaped prior to it) and 2 damaged.

 

True, crews were as green as they get, the tanks were without their HMGs b/c those are stored separately (and the tanks came from storage).

[DreDay]

True, crews were as green as they get, the tanks were without their HMGs b/c those are stored separately (and the tanks came from storage).

 

Not even storage, that particular company of T-64s was surrounded by a crowd of local civilians (mostly women) during their regular training session. There was no way in hell that Russian crews of the 14th Army would have used force against these people that they saw as their compatriots; so they had chosen to stand down and to let the locals (who were mostly also ex-14th Army servicemen) take posession of these tanks. Again though - we are getting way outside the scope of this thread. Please feel free to PM me if you want to discuss this some more...

Edited January 18, 2015 by DreDay

[wee]

The gun itself is cheaper, and easier to maintain, than a tank, for sure. OTOH it requires a larger crew and an artillery tractor, and most of its work can be done by ATGMs far cheaper and way more mobile. ATG still has some benefits over ATGM: undisruptable, higher ROF, not affected by APS and usefulness for indirect support.

 

Good points and I agree with you.

 

Although non-professional conscripts or older reservists manning obsolete/aging equipment found from near-forgotten warehouse are cheap. Far cheaper to sacrifice, than for example hired professionals or skilled operators using new or latest expensive hightech equipment. Sad, but true fact. 

Edited January 19, 2015 by wee

[MikeyD]

By coincidence I just read a report stating that in the past day Russian(?) tanks had assaulted the extreme left flank of the Ukrainian Pisky defense line following a massive shelling but the attackers were repelled and forced to retreat. The report claimed that two MT-12 guns of 5th battalion were instrumental in the defense. Apparently the gun's not quite as harmless as we've been assuming.

Edited January 20, 2015 by MikeyD

[DreDay]

I suppose the MT-12 could be employed in similar roles. They are even less mobile than SPG-9s (probably considered static for all intents and purposes). However, they have an even bigger punch and according to the manual significantly more ammo than SPG-9s. They K model also can fire an ATGM. How useful would that be remains to be seen.  

 

I don't quite share your enthusiasm for the effectivness of MT-12s on a modern battlefield; but one interesting note about the K model is that it is radar guided and can be fired with zero visual contact in any weather and/or light conditions...wonder if this could somehow be modeled in SF (without just giving it same characteristics as a TI-based system)?

[DreDay]

By coincidence I just read a report stating that in the past day Russian(?) tanks had assaulted the extreme left flank of the Ukrainian Pisky defense line following a massive shelling but the attackers were repelled and forced to retreat. The report claimed that two MT-12 guns of 5th battalion were instrumental in the defense. Apparently the gun's not quite as harmless as we've been assuming.

 

I do agree that they are not exactly harmless; but I would caution you from using any recent day reports (whener rebel or Ukrainian) as proof of anything. The propoganda war is in full swing over there and statements made by both sides can be rediculed for days. I would suggest ignoring such claims (unless well documented by video and multiple independent witness accounts) for now. Let it sit in for a few months and the truth will come out...