Armor how important is it?

[Guest jaja]

Hmmm. It would seem the M1 could almost always hit an exposed, stationary target since it is easy to point the gun, and the laser and other computers do the rest. I definatly agree with your modified figures for moving targets, though. What computer could predict where a target moving in a standard, random, ziz-zag patten be when the shell flies?

[This message has been edited by jaja (edited 02-08-2001).]

[Zizka]

Whenever you're thinking about tank or weapon design issues (like 'why not stick an ATGM on a tank?'), remember some mundane issues:

1. Cost to retrofit the fleet.

2. Cost (time, money) to train tankers how to fire and maintain the TOW.

3. Cost to put TOW rounds in an armor battalion's basic load--more trucks, troops, money, etc.

4. Usually the biggest killer of ideas like this is the organizational issue: now the battalion will need folks to perform organizational maintenance, supply, etc. Where will these new soldiers come from in a zero-sum army?

[FormerNuke]

Several days ago I discovered this web site and now I can say I finally feel at home. I even ordered TO 3.0 and CM. Thanks!

I think a point that some are missing in this discussion is that as long as it still takes the grunt with his own two feet to take and hold anything, that grunt is going to want the biggest weapon he can bring along. In what form it will eventually take is really dependent on the world situation. And when that grunt needs to or has to move he wants that weapon to come with him, JEEP-LAV-TANK-(HOVER TANK?), in the end the exact form won't really matter. What will matter to the man holding that hill or building is where is that "really big gun?" Why isn't it here next to me? And the big question, will it survive long enough to get my rear-end out of trouble or as soon as it gets here will I have to risk my rear-end to protect it?

Answering these questions will give you the right mix of maneuverability vs survivability. Because a tank may look pretty in the rear area, but if it can't go where that grunt is then the whole thing is useless and a gross waste of money.

[Guest DS CavScout]

OMG, I forgot one of the most important disadvantages to this whole "ATGM on M1" debate. Ammunition storage. TOW missiles are pretty freakin' big... where ya gonna put 'em? The main survivability trait of those tanks is the rear turret blow out panel storage for ammo. Don't wanna take away any of the 40 gun rounds, can't stow 'em outside, and CERTAINLY don't want to put any in the troop compartment.

[Coyote]

I think we've hit most of the important points here but from one retreded tanker's perspective,"tank" is just the solution to a continuing need for mobility and protection and firepower in one platform.

Mobility: tracks still generate lower ground pressure for a given vehicle weight than tires (even with central inflation control).

Protection: all of the things that heavy armor is intended to protect a soldier from are still out there (cheap, massed produced, bullets, shells and rockets). Light armor is just to allow you to get away, if you have to take some land away from someone, get the heaviest armor you can.

Firepower: a high-velocity cannon can be used against just about anything except high-speed aircraft just by loading a different round of ammo. No missile has that kind of flexibility.

The M1 bears no resemblence to the WWI British "Male" and armor in the next century may not look anything like the M1 (Ask David Drake, he says in the front of his books he's just trying to tell a good story).

------------------

[Guest jaja]

The M1 is alot like the old WWI tanks. It just has a turret, a different silhouette, a better gun, and better armor (and electronics).

[Trooper]

Originally posted by jaja:

The 5000 meter M1 range is new. I read recently the current M1s can hit a moving target at 3200 meters while it is moving 95% of the time.

Yes, the other 5% of the time is the 5% that it's standing still and shooting!

NTM

------------------

The difference between infantrymen and cavalrymen is that cavalrymen get to die faster, for we ride into battle!

[Carter]

I finally tracked down some info on that projectile jaja mentioned.

It is called XM943 or STAFF (Smart Target Activated Fire and Forget). It is a 120mm smart missile fired from the cannon of an Abrams.

The fire-and-forget STAFF functions much like a conventional round. But while in-flight, it activates an onboard millimeter wave radar. This radar seeks out a target, with some capability to disreguard decoys. Once it finds a target, STAFF flies over it and attacks it from the top with an explosively formed penetrator.

STAFF is primarily an anti-armor weapon, but can also attack helicopters.

Sounds like STAFF is capable of functioning while the Abrams tank is on the move, and beyond the tank's line-of-sight.

The STAFF is said to require no change to the tank turret and no unique actions by the tank crew other than setting a single range zone switch.

Storage would be the same as the other 120mm ammo.

Successful tests of STAFF were done in 1997. It was developed by Alliant Techsystems.

[Carter]

I found some other interesting info on STAFF from Armada International:

"A cost and operational effectiveness analysis carried out by the US Army Armor Center at Fort Knox claims that the combat effectiveness of an M1A2 could be increased by 219 per cent by adding four Staff rounds to the stowed ammunition load.

As part of the Direct Fire Lethality programme that is developing improved 120 mm rounds and gun stabilisation systems for the Abrams, the US Army is also working on an improved warhead for the Staff. In Fiscal Year 1998 it intends to statically demonstrate the technology for a dual-liner EFP warhead able to form an ultra-long EFP, and by Fiscal Year 2000 wants to test a new warhead with at least 33 per cent greater armour penetration than the current design. The X-rod is a manoeuvrable long rod penetrator that is fitted like a sabot round, then boosted to high speed by a rocket motor. It carries a fire-and-forget millimetric wave seeker and is steered by rocket thrusters. Impact velocity is around 1600 metres per second.

Once fire-and-forget rounds with autonomous guidance are in service, their effect on tactics will be dramatic. Instead of waiting until the range has fallen to two kilometres or less, defenders will be able to inflict long range attrition even on an enemy which is making good use of the terrain features to deny the defenders an effective line of sight.

Despite the likely cost of smart rounds, they may still prove a cost-effective method of conducting reconnaissance by fire. If the presence of enemy forces behind a terrain feature such as a ridge is suspected, and no drone is available to check the area, a fire-and-forget round could be despatched as a near-instant alternative."

Being a top attack weapon STAFF would be very useful at engaging targets in defilade.

Since STAFF is self-guided I'm sure it would be effective at engaging evasively maneuvering targets even while the shooter is on the move... although 95% accuracy sounds pretty optimistic to me.

You might not be quite sure which target you're going to hit with STAFF. I guess that's okay firing into a group of the enemy, but it could be a vary bad thing to fire it into a mixed group of friendlies/enemies.

[Guest jaja]

I think MPAT is the anti-helicopter round. STAFF is the other new round. Three total are carried together (I'm not sure which is the "2" and which is the "1").

[Spook]

A question for Zizka:

Perchance, would you be the same LtC Leonhard who's authored the books "Art of Maneuver" and "Fighting by Minutes"?

[Coyote]

There is another reason that longer range direct fire weapons aren't high priority.

There are a lot of places in the world where you can see 1000 meters much less 5000. While I was in Europe in the '80s, someone determined that the average intervisiblity in the 7th Army area was a bit over 500 meters. We were more concerned with maximum rate of fire and ammo stowage than with maximum range.

[Coyote]

Here is the link to data on the STAFF round at the Military Analysis Network page.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m943.htm

Tons of other interesting data also available at FAS.org.

Enjoy.

Coyote

[Tumbleweed]

Originally posted by brad:

Granted, but the Iraqi army is not a power say like the Russian Army or any other major power that makes sure they have air defense systems with them on the battle field.

I have to disagree and I think that the Iranian people would also have a problem with this statement. And Russia (And the US experience in Vietnam supports this as well) has been shown twice in the last 2 decades that a 'minor' country/military power can humble the vaunted Russian military on the field. Air defenses on the tactical field are a lot cheaper to build and maintain than strategic defenses.

Granted, however, parking an armored regiment in entrenched positions without sufficient air cover facing overwhelming force is a bad tactic.

But don't discount other countries militaries simply because they use sub-1990's technology or are handled inappropriately by micro-managing politicians.

Just because the US has put a premium on keeping it's soldiers alive on the filed of battle doesn't mean that other approaches aren't just as effective. We use stealth and advanced munitions to compensate for putting less grunts in harms way. Using professionalism, training, sound tactics, innovation, and solid equipment an army using purely conventional (in the present context of the word) arms would be a tough opponent.

As with all military innovations, only time will tell us which approach will prove more effective and until the US military faces a competent non-stealth, non-advanced armament force we simply won't know.

[dej2]

I understand that the staying power of an armored unit may have its advantages over helicopters but as for which armor unit? The M1A1D or the M2/M3 Bradley? The M1 has much more armor protection and more firepower, but if the M2 had a compliment of 3 ATGM teams (1 TOW and 2 Javlin) wouldn't the M2 be more effective than the M1 against armored units?

[Redwolf]

Well, 5 ATGM tubes would possible bring up rate of fire to M1 standards, although at considerably higher cost for the ammo.

But the infantry teams are easily supressed respectivly kept in the Bradley and the whole combo is a little too anti-armor oriented.

And of course if you are actually shooting at tanks then the M1 is likely be able to survive return hits.

[Scout_42MDP]

Wow. Somebody bumped this up after 28 months

[minmax]

I am honored I guess, frankly armor is so much poo poo, give me a good fire team with a decent ATGM shooter and armor will run home to mama.

"Grunts proof that God has a sense of humor

Armor and Artie, proof that God does not like

Grunts' sense of humor."

[TheJames]

Well, the Russians don't seem to have had any problem putting ATGMs in ALL of their tanks, all the way back to the T-55. I find it interesting that the US has failed to do the same.

Adding a 5000m-range guided projectile sure can't hurt, but the Russians and their client states have this capability NOW. And while the STAFF round sounds somewhat more capable than weapons like the AT-11, by the time the STAFF reaches widespread service, you can be guaranteed there'll be a top-attack millimeter-wavelength AT-11 (or something similar).

Having a barrel-launched ATGM isn't the be-all and end-all of armoured warfare, but it sure does give you a lot more options (and makes life for APC crews a whole lot more interesting).

As for using infantry ATGM and IFVs, just look at the sheer amount of artillery that a lot of countries have (ie North Korea's ridiculous amount of old tube artillery). A few regiments (or, god help you, DIVISIONS) of arty, no matter how old, can quickly spell the end of infantry/IFV combos, and even if they're dug in, they won't be doing a whole lot. But heavy tanks like the M-1s/T-90s/Leopards can handle the heat a lot better.

It just goes back to the fact that single-system solutions don't work. The airplane didn't render ground forces obsolete, the tank won't render infantry and light vehicles obsolete, the missile won't make the gun obsolete, etc. etc. etc.

You're always going to need heavy armour, but you also need a lot of other peices to make an army work. That's why combined-arms warfare is the cornerstone of every modern military doctrine.

[Redwolf]

ATGMs launched from tubes don't sound that hot to me. Sure, they increase the range over the main gun, but rate of fire totally sucks.

As I understand the Soviets tank-lunched ATGM systems come with these disadvantages:

1) The gunner has to stay in sight until impact of missile. Russians missles are slow. So the tank stays exposed, at least with the turret up to the gunner's sights (which are low on Russian tanks). My understanding of IFVs is that the missle control is done via a sight high on the vehicle.

2) Russians tanks have very low rate of fire anyway, but Western tanks would give up a lot of rate-of-fire by using ATGMs. Also, Russian tanks have very low gun maximal depression, but the ATGM could hit even if the barrel is too high.

So at the very least you would have to do something fancy like the missle being guided by the commander in his sights while gunner and loader continue to operate the main gun.

3) Western armies have a lot of long-range weapons anyway, especially CAS and helicopters in combination with air superiority

4) I doubt Western tanks would have a great need for such long range even in the absense of air, because right now they would usually move fast towards whatever they find

So, overall the Russian ATGM solution seems to be born more out of the need to threaten Western vehicles from an inferiour position.

[minmax]

Barrel fired dumb idea, never take away one weapon in favor of another. Put the ATGM 0n a mast like you see for live TV trucks. so your in a depression safe from observation and your sight and missile tube is up searching for some unsuspecting slob.

Another Minmax shooting off at the mouth observation is go to rail guns forget Kordite.

The technology is there and besides it takes up less room than sabot or HE rounds.

Armor is still vulnerable to the determined rifleman with a simple 'sticky bomb' Ever see what a hand grenade can do to the intake of a gas turbine?

Well, talk amongst yourselves and don't get verklempt.

[tar]

The US Army tried the combined gun/missile with the Sheridan, and IIRC one model of the M60. They dropped it because it turned out not to work all that well in practice. Among the problems was restricted ammo storage.

How many tank rounds do you want to give up to have some missile rounds? In tanks space is at much more of a premium than in APCs.

[JRapkins]

Originally posted by minmax:

Another Minmax shooting off at the mouth observation is go to rail guns forget Kordite.

The technology is there and besides it takes up less room than sabot or HE rounds.

lots of power required, unless you keep chraged capacitors as the ammunition, and I'm not sure that would take up any less room, whilst adding yet another safety concern.

My idea for defilade tank firing would be to add something like a metal-storm esque ICM launcher to sit side saddle, similar to the TOW launcher on the Delco LAV-III turret - ie the munitions are inert, and then are fired auto-mortar like indirectly to grid co-ordinates in front of the tank. Not sure how big Metal Storm projectiles have got thus far, I know they had a 40mm 40 barrel system that fired at 12,000 rpm. This would give a tank platoon its own indirect capability, without the added pressure of taking up space.

and a Metal Storm main gun would be interesting to see, if not that practical

going completely off the tube launched ATGM thing tho

[Redwolf]

As a side note, the ATGM systems also have cost issues. A substantial advantage of tank main gun ammo is that it is comparably cheap.

The system named above sounds like it will have a thermal sight on its own for fully autonomous targeting (as said, continued guidance of the missile by the tank gunner is undesirable).

That would make it similar to the Javelin - which is $78,000 a shot.

[Big Duke 6]

I'd be curious to see the source for any weapon that claims 95% accuracy under even the simplest conditions. And there is a big difference with firing a weapon on a range, against a pop up target, and using the weapon under combat conditions (when the enemy is shooting back at you, your tired, cold, scared, etc). Most simulations do a poor job replicating the morale of the weapon's user, probably because it's too difficult and we game players don't like that. We like to be in control and make our men work perfectly, regardless of casualties. It's just not like that in reality.

As to ATGMs on the Abrams, it's feasible. The BMP 3 features an ATGM that fires through its 100mm main gun, for example. ATGMs offer potentially high accuracy at longer ranges, under certain circumstances, and with certain sacrifices. The drawbacks are several. First, they take up a lot more room, typically, than conventional rounds. Secondly, they require a different guidance system than the primary weapons, adding in additional cost and opportunity for equipment failure. The rate of fire would not be very good firing ATGMS either.

If we were going to fight all of our battles in Saudi Arabia at extreme range, ATGMs would potentially take on a more meaningful role. But the average range in Europe is 800 meters, for example. Korea is less than that. Rapid fire tank cannons, with quick time of flight, are a good all around weapon and are less complicated and costly to field.

Just my two cents worth. Good discussion.