MANPADS in vehicles

[whitehot78]

I still haven't been able to find out if the MANPADS sections like Iglas and Stingers can engage enemy air support aircraft while being loaded on their vehicles but with the "open up" command issued.

 

Saw lots of videos and pics where eastern armies, including an AA section at platoon level, have their AA missilemen pop out with their launchers from the open upper hatch in their bmps.

 

In fact would be a nice thing, since you wouldnt have to stop and deploy the AA squad to cover its vehicles.

If its a not included feature, could make for a nice addition in a patch, if the engine permits it 

[BTR]

I usually turned them out in vehicles since that's standard procedure expecting them to operate so. Shame to find out it doesn't work that way. 

[akd]

Can you provide any documentation of units firing while standing in hatches? I can find plenty of imagery of units riding in that position, but I can find video of firing MANPADS while standing on roof of stopped vehicle. It would seem to be impractical as it would greatly limit the firing arc and prevent tracking an aircraft through a large arc.

[BTR]

Doesn't look like it's limiting too much here:

 

 

Live fire exercise: 

 

 

Moreover:

 

http://pvo.guns.ru/pzrk/strela_tak.htm

 

 

 

Прежде чем отрабатывать вопросы по выбору позиции и ее оборудованию, солдатам показывают фотографии или рисунки стрелка-зенитчика во время стрельбы из положения - стоя (рис. 1), с колена (рис. 2), из окопа (рис. 3), с танка, с БМП.

 

 

Следующий этап - тренировки в боевой работе по светящейся точке, имитирующей цель, которая движется к объекту под различными ракурсами и с различной скоростью. Майор Макаров начинает тренировки при скорости цели 60-80 м/с. Затем скорость движения целей увеличивается. 3-4 занятия проводятся на учебном поле при изготовке к стрельбе стоя из окопа, с БМП (БТР), с танка.

Со временем условия тренировок усложняются. "Стрельба" ведется в движении, ночью. При этом офицер обращает особое внимание на выбор момента пуска ракеты, на определение параметров движущейся цели (высоты ее полета, скорости, курса и дальности пуска).

Edited February 3, 2015 by BTR

[John Kettler]

whitehot78,

 

A very good question.

 

BTR,

 

One heck of an answer! Hadn't seen either pic, but I really like the last one.

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Edited February 3, 2015 by John Kettler

[MikeyD]

This seems to be on par with infantry firing from firing ports. Some of that between-war theoretical tactical doctrine that's better on paper than in practice.

[Rocco]

This seems to be on par with infantry firing from firing ports. Some of that between-war theoretical tactical doctrine that's better on paper than in practice.

 

Not really - firing a SAM from a open hatch (like in the photo) can be achieved from a short halt when aircraft are in the sector. That's different to trying to use a firing port on an a moving vehicle.

[Bastables]

This seems to be on par with infantry firing from firing ports. Some of that between-war theoretical tactical doctrine that's better on paper than in practice.

Not sure about that, most armies activity discourage riding and firing from on top of their apc's/IFV's, soldiers ignore it and promptly ride leaning out of hatches and shooting from on top of the veh's. Shooting man pads from the top of one's apc seems to be more in line with the natural inclination of personal comfort and conservation of energy inspite of "peace-time" army best practice.

 

The whole M113 ACAV kits/deployment is a case study in "best practice" being ignored and then changed.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

A lot if it also gets to the nature of how humans as a sensor work though.  The dismounted MANPADS team is better able to figure out where the enemy aviation is (audio cues and stationary surroundings makes it easier to spot targets), and further to that end it's less "work" on the crew in terms of stabilization and moving around.  When the target for the APC mounted MANPADS is going to come up announced at a set time, it works okayish.  It's not really a practical tool in terms of BMPS motoring across the countryside with a Igla team hanging out of every hatch.

 

It's a capabilitiy, but it's pretty fireport worthy in terms of using a weapon in a suboptimal manner.

 

 

 

The whole M113 ACAV kits/deployment is a case study in "best practice" being ignored and then changed.

 

It has more to do with the planned employment of the vehicle and the weapons system.  The wing M60s were not the optimal employment of the M60 weapons system, they were the way to protect the flanks of a vehicle in an especially flankable environment, and a way to make scout teams relevant (the M114/Scout M113s were intended to carry small dismount teams for recon purposes, they weren't really big enough to hop off and do terribly much in Vietnam away from the vehicle).  

[Bastables]

A lot if it also gets to the nature of how humans as a sensor work though.  The dismounted MANPADS team is better able to figure out where the enemy aviation is (audio cues and stationary surroundings makes it easier to spot targets), and further to that end it's less "work" on the crew in terms of stabilization and moving around.  When the target for the APC mounted MANPADS is going to come up announced at a set time, it works okayish.  It's not really a practical tool in terms of BMPS motoring across the countryside with a Igla team hanging out of every hatch.

 

It's a capabilitiy, but it's pretty fireport worthy in terms of using a weapon in a suboptimal manner.

 

 

It has more to do with the planned employment of the vehicle and the weapons system.  The wing M60s were not the optimal employment of the M60 weapons system, they were the way to protect the flanks of a vehicle in an especially flankable environment, and a way to make scout teams relevant (the M114/Scout M113s were intended to carry small dismount teams for recon purposes, they weren't really big enough to hop off and do terribly much in Vietnam away from the vehicle).  

Fire ports, shooting from on top of apc's, riding on T34-85s during assaults. All suboptimal, all practiced, and all in opposition to "interwar"  theory/best practice.

Tank riders in CMRT show that not even BTS is above modelling sub-optimal conduct by soldiers if they deem it important enough.

[akd]

Doesn't look like it's limiting too much here:

 

 

Live fire exercise: 

 

 

Moreover:

 

http://pvo.guns.ru/pzrk/strela_tak.htm

translations please

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

Fire ports, shooting from on top of apc's, riding on T34-85s during assaults. All suboptimal, all practiced, and all in opposition to "interwar"  theory/best practice.

Tank riders in CMRT show that not even BTS is above modelling sub-optimal conduct by soldiers if they deem it important enough

 

Uh.  Firing ports were theory/best practice that were brilliantly successful to the point where they've nearly gone extinct.  Shooting from the top of APCs was never strictly verboten, that's part of why the base model M113 had a large roof hatch on all models, the ACAV just made it into a weird sort of many-mounted-MG-kind-of-tank based on a non-dismounting crew.  Tank riders were never strictly in opposition to any sort of practice, it's why plenty of tanks had handrails and there's still various field manuals showing how to sit on top of a tank and not die, but it's one of those things that modern lethality has pushed beyond dangerous and into stupid.

 

MANPADS from a vehicle?  Cool.  I'm not really opposed, nor was I stating an opposition to the ability, it should just be a very low success rate in terms of spotting aircraft and engaging them to correspond to the difficulty operating from a hatch in that manner.

[whitehot78]

 

 

MANPADS from a vehicle?  Cool.  I'm not really opposed, nor was I stating an opposition to the ability, it should just be a very low success rate in terms of spotting aircraft and engaging them to correspond to the difficulty operating from a hatch in that manner.

 

Surely you have to consider the pros and cons of the situation. There are several aspects which should be pondered, but I was thinking anyway it would be a nice possibility. Having for example a mech company moving, you could employ formations in which the mounted AA squads have firing arcs covering the company conveniently.

 

Also, I don't agree with the notion that an AA squad would be much hampered from that position:

 

-They have a 360^ arc field of view and also from a slightly elevated position

-The sounds from the engines wouldn't matter that much to me - Those operators wear headphones to "listen" to their missiles lock tones.

-Every unit on the battlefield who detects an impending air attack would be relaying the information ASAP, it would be a priority notice to higher level command, who will pass it to relevant AA assets istantly (at least with the modern information sharing equipment present in CMBS). This means that most AA units would be alerted about the general direction of the strike.

-Ofc those MANPADS would be unprotected against small arms fire, arty shrapnel and so on.

 

- Abt the firing ports thing: I don't think we are talking the same playground here. Those ports cover a very small firing arc, they are on vehicles who can employ much better suppression methods, they are probably unused mostly, since infantry should be dismounted when in contact. Having a chance to throw a light SAM at an attacking  helicopter or slow flying AC would be much more valuable, battlewise

[BTR]

translations please

 

Google to the rescue (excuse my laziness, but the translation is actually pretty good. I'm sure you've used it yourself already though.):

 

 

In division, commanded by Maj. Jacob Makarov, exercises with gunners first held in specially equipped classrooms. There are schemes and layouts of units and blocks MANPADS acting training equipment and simulators, table tactical and technical data of MANPADS and air targets, for which it can be applied. Further sessions are conducted in the field. Before work questions regarding the position and its equipment, the soldiers show photographs or drawings gunners during the shooting of the position - standing (Fig. 1), with the knee (Fig. 2) of the trench (Fig. 3), with the tank with BMP. The position should allow to conduct all-round visibility. Closing angles should not exceed 10 degrees. For safety reasons, there should be a number of positions of other calculations and crews.

 

The next step - training in a combat operation on the luminous point, simulating a target that moves an object from different angles and at different speeds. Major Makarov begins training at the target speed of 60-80 m / s. Then the speed is increased purposes. 3-4 classes are held at the training field at the ready to shoot standing up out of the trench, with the BMP (APCs) from the tank.

 

Over time, the training conditions are complicated. "Shooting" while riding at night. In this case, the officer drew particular attention to the timing of the missile launch, the determination of the parameters of a moving target (the height of its flight, speed, course and distance of the start).

 

 

By Colonel Vladimir BOCHEROV Candidate of Military Sciences 

 

As for degraded firing ability, I don't think that's relevant to a stationary vehicle, essentially that's the same as being dismounted. Firing on the move, or while moving at night, that's a different thing though.   

Edited February 4, 2015 by BTR

[mvp7]

Firing from hatch would seem like a logical course of action if moving vehicle detects approaching air threat. It takes less time than getting out of the vehicle and gives the benefit of elevated shooting position, I don't see any reason why you couldn't or wouldn't do that if that's the situation. If there is time to get into proper manpad position and hide the vehicle I don't think standing in the hatch would offer any benefits, it doesn't offer any real cover as the vehicle is the most likely target for the aircraft and for enemy infantry the manpad user would be easy target practice.

[Chazz]

Hmm from a technical stand point, I presume it would only be worth adding if they bring tank riders back, as that would fall in the same realm of animations and programing I think.

 

As a side note, next time I play I will search the naming roster of HQ units for a 'Major Makarov'. It should be a common enough name to assume it is already there. Still, badass name of the week. If it is not there already than I request...nay...demand that BFC add it

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

-They have a 360^ arc field of view and also from a slightly elevated position Minus the turret unless in a kneecap defilade sort of position. 

-The sounds from the engines wouldn't matter that much to me - Those operators wear headphones to "listen" to their missiles lock tones. Eh.  Still removes significant situational awareness. 

-Every unit on the battlefield who detects an impending air attack would be relaying the information ASAP, it would be a priority notice to higher level command, who will pass it to relevant AA assets istantly (at least with the modern information sharing equipment present in CMBS). This means that most AA units would be alerted about the general direction of the strike. Assumes perfect spotting, no electronic warfare jamming, and a good understanding where reporting stations are, own location, and unrestricted LOS

-Ofc those MANPADS would be unprotected against small arms fire, arty shrapnel and so on. And brutally so standing up nearly entirely out of the vehicle. 

 

 

It's still not the optimal launch platform.  If an Apache was bearing down on the target, or as sort of a last ditch the Migs, 2S6s all failed, slightly improved "iron sky" kind of defense, yeah, makes sense, but greatly reducing the ability of the AFV fired MANPAD to acquire targets would be about right.

[DreDay]

It's still not the optimal launch platform.  If an Apache was bearing down on the target, or as sort of a last ditch the Migs, 2S6s all failed, slightly improved "iron sky" kind of defense, yeah, makes sense, but greatly reducing the ability of the AFV fired MANPAD to acquire targets would be about right.

 

You have to remember though that Russians have deployed several modern automated Fire Control and Command systems for their MANPAD platoons in the past couple of years. These systems are supposed to be integrated with other Radar and C3 networks and their purpose is to notify the MANPAD crews of approaching targets. Such systems are supposed to give the MANPAD (and other tactical-level SAM crews) enough warning, ID, and guidance to engage the approaching targets. Here is an example of one of these systems:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-TFRHXKOKc

 

If we are to assume that such systems are effective, it should not matter so much if the MANPAD crews are stationary or mobile... as long as their firing solution is correct.

[domfluff]

Has anyone actually tested this? (If not I will try to get this set up).

The firing ports work (as they have since CM:A, but they seem to be better positioned now), and giving a BMP an open up command will result in troops firing small arms from the opened hatches, as they do from Halftracks in the WW2 games.

If the manpad logic is similar to the small arms logic, then this should work, no?

Clearly, I'm still not entirely sure *why* you'd want to use the firing ports in most situations - you'd presumably have to be certain that there were no anti-tank weapons around (ha!) or be fighting in an NBC environment, which is quite far out of scope of this game.

I can certainly see the value in firing Manpads from stationary vehicles - I'm often in situations where I've a Motor Rifle platoon kept out of LOS, waiting for the other elements of the company/whatever to catch up, and prepare an assault - I could definitely see the advantage of popping a chap with an Igla through the hatch, rather than dismounting and remounting him - that way you're ready to leave with minimal notice.

Edited February 5, 2015 by domfluff

[slysniper]

I would think the crew of the armored vehicle would be the ones protesting. Think about it, enemy air in the area. They are looking to get out of sight if possible. Not sit there and let a guy fire a missile that creates the perfect line to them and indicates target here blow it up.

 

Now if there is no place for cover and concealment. Sure joe, go ahead and fire. We might be dead in a few seconds anyway.

[db_zero]

Interesting topic and perhaps doctrine/procedure influenced?

 

I'm also playing Cammand Modern Naval Operations and a lot of the naval vessels have MANPADs systems on them presumably fire by sailors or Marines. Some of these vessels are patrol craft or smaller so I  would presume a fairly well armored APC would be able to withstand the launch of a MANPAD. IIRC the BMP back in the day came with a SA-7. The US may have had a different doctrine and procedure when it came to the Redeye and Stinger. I think they rolled around in jeeps and later Humvees.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

If we are to assume that such systems are effective, it should not matter so much if the MANPAD crews are stationary or mobile... as long as their firing solution is correct.

 

The stability of a soldier standing on an armored vehicle in motion, and offroad is pretty bad.  Similar alert/cuing systems have existed in the past, and they've hardly made MANPADS any less of a crapshoot.  

[Daroc]

You smell sumfink, sniff, sniff.

[Stagler]

Should be able to be fired from the hatch when stationary imo.

[Splinty]

The stability of a soldier standing on an armored vehicle in motion, and offroad is pretty bad.  Similar alert/cuing systems have existed in the past, and they've hardly made MANPADS any less of a crapshoot.  

Right on the money. Riding in an IFV is something like riding in the back of a pick up truck going full speed down a very bumpy road. It would be very hard for a MANPADS operator to stand up, much less operate his weapons system.