ATGMs

[John Kettler]

fytinghellfish,

A most informative article. Note to Assad and Putin: if you wish to maintain even semiplausible deniability, next time leave off the manufacturer's plate!

Love the sig! Truly twisted!

Regards,

John Kettler

[hellfish]

Thank you, I'll be here all week.

Or at least until CMSF is released, at which point I probably won't be seeing the light of day for a week.

[hellfish]

Found this on an armor enthusiast forum. Interesting intel.

Jane's Defence

Key Points:

* The IDF has encountered a wide array of ATGMs since its incursion into south Lebanon, including the Kornet-E 9P133, Metis-M 9M131, the 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5 'Spandrel') and the 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 'Spigot')

* More than 20 IDF personnel have been killed by ATGMs since the start of the conflict

An arsenal of advanced Russian-made anti-tank guided missiles (ATGMs) is emerging as the most effective weapon being deployed by the Islamic Resistance's (the military wing of the Lebanese Shi'ite Party of God - Hizbullah) against Israeli forces in southern Lebanon.

"It is the most extensive encounter between Israeli armour and Russian-made ATGMs since the October 1973 war," retired brigadier general Avigdor Klein, a recent chief armour officer in the Israel Defence Force (IDF), told Jane's.

The IDF has encountered a wide array of ATGMs since its incursion into south Lebanon.

These include the Kornet-E 9P133, claimed to be able to penetrate 1-1.2 m of armour protected by explosive reactive armour (ERA); the Metis-M 9M131, equipped with a tandem high-explosive anti-tank (HEAT) warhead; the 9K113 Konkurs (AT-5 Spandrel) and the 9K111 Fagot (AT-4 'Spigot') ATGMs.

"This massive supply of ATGMs reaffirms our concerns that advanced Russian weapons sold to Syria were forwarded to Hizbullah," a senior Israeli defence source told Jane's. Iran manufactures its own version of the Konkurs, the Towsan-1/M113 and has also developed improved versions of the 9K11 Malyutka (AT-3 'Sagger') under the local name of Raad, both of which have surfaced with Hizbullah in Lebanon.

During the first month of fighting, 13 IDF armour personnel were killed by ATGM hits on Israel's most protected main battle tanks (MBTs); the Merkava Mk 2, 3, and 4.

"To put it in perspective," said a senior IDF source, "out of more than 500 ATGMs fired at us in the first month of fighting, only some 40 tanks sustained hits, with 10 being penetrated."

IDF commanders defined the Russian ATGMs as their "most dangerous challenge" in the fighting. "We are paying a heavy price to the ATGMs," admitted Major General Udi Adam, head of the IDF's Northern Command.

Several senior IDF sources have expressed disappointment in the IDF's decision to defer the procurement of Rafael Armament Development Authority's Trophy armour protection system (APS), which they believe could have turned the odds in the fighting.

"When we designed the Merkava Mk 4, we realised that the ERA is not sufficient to protect from advanced Russian ATGMs and that's why the Mk 4 was designed to carry an APS," said Klein, who is currently employed by Rafael.

"The Mk 4 provides excellent protection from all missiles in most of the tank's sectors, but some sectors are vulnerable to the advanced missiles. "An APS such as the Trophy could have defeated all ATGM threats," claimed another defence source. "Moreover, it would have required the designers of ATGMs to develop a whole new concept for anti-tank missiles."

IDF field commanders echo these claims. "The decision not to acquire an APS was simply a matter of wrong priorities. It could have completely changed the pace of our advancement in Lebanon and save lives," said Gen Adam.

"Nonetheless, if it wasn't for the high level of protection inherent in the Merkava design, the results could have been worse. You have to recognise how many lives the Merkavas' armour have saved."

While Hizbullah anti-tank teams appear well-trained and familiar with the MBTs weak spots, some of their successful hits are attributed to the tactics employed by the IDF in the first weeks of the fighting.

"Most of the armoured units were deployed on rescue and covering missions, rather than leading a wide offensive," said Klein. "This is contradictory to the IDF armour doctrine and unnecessarily exposed the tanks to the missiles.

"The small formations used to take over the small south Lebanese villages were unsuited for the threat," he added. "Employing the right tactics could significantly reduce the number of tanks hit.

"We were attacked by hundreds of ATGMs," Colonel Amnon Asulin, commander of the IDF's Sa'ar Armoured Brigade 7, told Jane's.

"These were young troops who were sent there, inexperienced in that kind of warfare, but as they are gaining experience and become familiar with the terrain they also adapt and improve their tactics."

"We were amazed by the vast quantity of weapons that we've discovered and encountered in Lebanon," said Gen Adam, "but we are becoming more efficient at dealing with them."

In the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Israeli armour was surprised by the quantity and efficiency of Egyptian and Syrian anti-tank teams, equipped with Russian-made Sagger ATGMs, which caused severe damage to hundreds of tanks.

"Hizbullah is not the same kind of surprise," said Gen Adam. "It only requires some adaptation from us."

At the same time, Israel is launching a diplomatic effort to stop Russian arms sales to Syria. "For years, we have been warning the Russians that their weapons would end up in the hands of Hizbullah, while they claimed to be selling arms only to responsible states," a senior diplomatic source told Jane's. "This has clearly proved to be false."

[rudel.dietrich]

"To put it in perspective," said a senior IDF source, "out of more than 500 ATGMs fired at us in the first month of fighting, only some 40 tanks sustained hits, with 10 being penetrated."

Most of what has been fired is probably AT-4 and AT-5

I have no data to back but up but I bet less than 5% of those 500 missles were fired from the likes of AT-13 and AT-14 platforms

I would assume the Syrian army would have a little better accuracy numbers and that using systems like the Milan and AT-13/14 systems would have a far greater accuracy.

8% accuracy is just godawful. Makes you wonder if any training at all is being given to those that are using those systems.

Maybe just some brief verbal instructions and the blessing of Alah before the instructor leaves them on their own.

[Battlefront.com]

I think a fair number were probably AT-3. These systems need a fairly high level of training in order to be used effectively. The Soviets had the luxury of training soldiers, Hezbollah probably far less so. Then there are all the problems with deployment. Fire too close or too far away and might as well not have fired at all.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I think a fair number were probably AT-3. These systems need a fairly high level of training in order to be used effectively. The Soviets had the luxury of training soldiers, Hezbollah probably far less so. Then there are all the problems with deployment. Fire too close or too far away and might as well not have fired at all.

Steve

Any ATGM needs alot of training in order to be used with great accuracy.

The Milan III is probably the easiest system in the world to set up and fire, I could do it blind folded.

But it took ALOT of training missles to be able to use one and hit a moving or low profile target.

In testing situations against moving targets with no external stressors we could hit our targets with with 95% sucess rate at 1 km.

Once we started adding in screaming officers, time limits and gunfire over our heads to simulate the battlefield we still had just under a 90% sucess rate.

Our longest kill was 2.2 KM

The missle had actualy ran out of propulsion and the gunner used the alltitude to gain energy to dive into the target

[Battlefront.com]

Any ATGM needs alot of training in order to be used with great accuracy.

Well, some more than others. Charles and I got to play around with the Javelin trainer (fantastic chunk of taxpayer money ) and we were plinking tanks pretty easily. Our escort, the head of Javelin's doctrine and employment, joked about drafting Charles I've also read stuff out of Iraq that has guys who had almost no cross training on Javelin successfully engaging targets with it first shot. Not to say an excellent Javelin gunner is easy to produce, because I know that isn't true. What I am saying is that the Javelin is a lot more forgiving of newbee users compared to something like the AT-3 where you have to peer through a little peephole and keep both the target and the missile's ass end in view the whole time AND use the little joystick to keep things aligned. Big difference.

Steve

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Any ATGM needs alot of training in order to be used with great accuracy.

Well, some more than others. Charles and I got to play around with the Javelin trainer (fantastic chunk of taxpayer money ) and we were plinking tanks pretty easily. Our escort, the head of Javelin's doctrine and employment, joked about drafting Charles I've also read stuff out of Iraq that has guys who had almost no cross training on Javelin successfully engaging targets with it first shot. Not to say an excellent Javelin gunner is easy to produce, because I know that isn't true. What I am saying is that the Javelin is a lot more forgiving of newbee users compared to something like the AT-3 where you have to peer through a little peephole and keep both the target and the missile's ass end in view the whole time AND use the little joystick to keep things aligned. Big difference.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Since its so easy to use im sure the Marines will be eager to get their hands on it

<puts on best Marines voice> "You bet, because the Marines would actually use them"

I'm not a jarhead, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Thank you, thank you! I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitresses.

Steve

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Charles and I got to play around with the Javelin trainer (fantastic chunk of taxpayer money ) and we were plinking tanks pretty easily. Our escort, the head of Javelin's doctrine and employment, joked about drafting Charles

Hehe, yes, but dont forget that this is Charles your talking about Steve...the man who calculated acceleration and relative G's Matt would be experiencing after he had made a joke about leaving his driveway in his car doing 100mph.

Im betting Chalres have the missiles formalas and trajectoies calculated before even taking a shot!

Dan

[WineCape]

As long as the jar is filled in that liquid you have no worries that he'll be losing his edge KwazyDog.

Remember the Sturmmorser Tiger in CMBB?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree with others that it is likely the later, tandem warhead ATGMs had a far higher success rate than the overall figures, as supplied by Israel remember, suggest.

I remember when the Kornet was first unveiled to the press in the latter half of the ‘90s and the chief Russian designer was asked about whether it really could destroy fourth generation western tanks. His reply was that “anyone who can read equations will know it can, the equations are know by all and advanced shaped charge/HEAT warheads are not nearly as difficult to build as some western manufactures will have you believe”.

That is not to say that a Kornet could necessarily penetrate a fourth generation western tank over a narrow forward arc. But through the sides for sure. To stop ’90s designed tandem warheads you need both mass and modern designs of armour. You need a good thickness and weight of latest generation armour. This is not possible other than over the forward arc of tanks. Remember tanks now have the extra need for greater roof armour to deal with artillery bomblets, as a minimum, so limiting how much extra weight can be given over to side armour.

From a game play point of view it is extremely good news that ‘90s Russian infantry AT weapons have been demonstrated to be effective against the latest armour. Remember this is also true of the more plentiful shoulder fired RPG7/RPG29 weapons with the 105mm tandem warheads.

The careful coordination of small arms fire and infantry AT weapons, plus mines of various types, will be the way for the Syrians to win the scenarios. Says he… clearly not having played one yet… .

Will be fun for sure ,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

The most effective counter measure to tandem warheads is not better armor, it is active defenses. Something that can go out and scuttle the missile before it gets to the vehicle is far more practical than coming up with yet another armor type to defeat yet another advance in anti-armor technology. The laws of diminishing returns on armor were hit a while ago. The laws of exponential return on active defense systems hasn't even been tapped into.

Active defenses will require missiles that can outsmart the defenses. That's going to be a tough assignment for designers. It will require missiles that are able to affect sudden dodging maneuvers since it is unlikely anything short of LOSAT can bully its way through an active defense system. Or the shooter is going to have to do something to suppress the active defenses because I don't know how much more crap they can afford to stick on a missile to do it on its own.

It is going to be interesting to see how the next 15 years of development pans out

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Active defenses will require missiles that can outsmart the defenses. That's going to be a tough assignment for designers.

Might not be a lot of fun for the people who have to cough up the money to pay for it too. Oh wait, that's you and me. Darn.

Or the shooter is going to have to do something to suppress the active defenses because I don't know how much more crap they can afford to stick on a missile to do it on its own.

Decoys?

Michael

[cassh]

Steve - You know in the sniper post you talked about how armour doctrine had changed in light of experience in Iraq - well I'd say in light of Lebanon they were back to square one and that a stand off approach in MOUT was still required.

In southern Lebanon Hezbollah were using wire/laser guided weapons - imagine a fight against an enemy with fire-and-forget technology. It means the MOUT doctrine of the 1980/90's of dismounts going forward supported from depth for is back in vogue in my book.

It's amazing how often the wars of the Arab Israeli conflict have given focus to military doctrine and make us think a little about future warfare:-

1967 Devastating effect of air supremacy and airpower (genesis of AirLand Battle)

1973 massed ATGM threat to unsupported armour (birth of the IFV rather than APC)

1981 Pre-emptive strike on Iraq's Osirak reactor (Establishes the precedent of legitimate military pre-emption as an instrument of foreign policy)

1982 Lebanon, 1987 Intifada, 1993 Lebanon - Asymmetric warfare to foil conventional armies (beginning of "commando-isation" of western armies to counter this)

2006 Massed ATGM threat to unsupported armour & Asymmetric warfare to foil conventional armies...

[Homo ferricus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The most effective counter measure to tandem warheads is not better armor, it is active defenses. Something that can go out and scuttle the missile before it gets to the vehicle is far more practical than coming up with yet another armor type to defeat yet another advance in anti-armor technology.

Steve

thats my idea as well, with all those new double warhead projectiles that can be launched from RPG-29s and such (i assume thats what the tandem munitions you speak of are), the answer to a less vulnerable armor is not more layers of thick ceramic or magnetic or ERA or pressure defense or any passive defenses, it is a system that can spot and nuetralize a warhead before it even hits the armor. Russia has used a lot more active systems in their armor than the US has since the 90's and Russian T-72's, T-80's, and the new T-90's are all getting fit with modern laser defenses, counter projectiles, the works.

the answer to defending a tank successfully and with minimal harm, a defense system must ACT, and not REACT, because ERA isn't going to work so well with tandem warheads.

speaking of Russian tanks, have you seen the concepts for the new Russian tank codenamed "Black Eagle"? 12 shots a minute, pretty scary.

[John Kettler]

cassh,

While you make an interesting set of arguments, I must strongly dispute several aspects of your 1973 entry. It wasn't merely the AT-3 SAGGER which caused the IDF so much misery, but hordes of RPG-7s.

ISTR the AT units were stripped out of a second echelon Egyptian army and committed before the main force ever entered the fray. Thus, the IDF armor was pitted against twice the antitank strength OOB studies would've led the planners to expect. The accounts I've seen are of RPG-7 teams firing from all over the place, with the AT-3 teams firing from further back. So numerous were the RPG-7 teams lying on the desert that IDF tankers first thought they were logs--until they opened fire!

Your conclusion that the 1973 war was the genesis for the IFV flies in the face of the reality that the Soviets paraded what was generally acknowledged as the world's first IFV, the BMP-1, in November 1967. The BMP-1 was prominently featured in the propaganda extravaganza known as "Dneiper" that same year, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. If you wish to argue that 1973 was the real goad for the development of a western IFV, that's something else again.

As far as Osirak goes, the U.S. very nearly preemptively executed the S.I.O.P. during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Fortunately, Kennedy didn't jump at the opportunity to utterly destroy the Soviet Union at a price of "only 5-10 million Americans."

Regards,

John Kettler

[Capt. Toleran]

Speaking of LOSAT, is it in the game, or is it just in the planning stages of devolpment right now? I just looked it up, at 5000ft/s it would be a pretty interesting weapon to watch at work.

EDIT: Just looked it up, saw it was cancelled, a shame. There is mention of CKEM, some planned successor.

[cassh]

1973 - Conceded - not massed ATGM, but massed infantry anti-tank weapons.

If you wish to argue that 1973 was the real goad for the development of a western IFV, that's something else again.

I do.

BMP - Yes but USSR did not alter doctrine as a result of 1973 (BMP for them came as a result of operational art and OMG requirements) - but NATO did change from APC to beefier IFV that could fight in same echelon along side MBTs and deploy dismounts as required.

Re Cuban missile crisis – luckily Kennedy made the right strategic and moral choice – but that is not a good example of pre-emption as the threat had already manifested itself with Soviet missile minutes from Miami.

[rudel.dietrich]

The 73 war also once again drove home the importance of combined arms warfare.

The Isrealis once pressed back thought they could once again drive back the Egyptians how they always had, by massed tank formations.

They paid a heavy price. How they eventualy came to defeat the ATGMS in the open desert is very interesting.

[ August 20, 2006, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Capt. Toleran:

Speaking of LOSAT, is it in the game, or is it just in the planning stages of devolpment right now? I just looked it up, at 5000ft/s it would be a pretty interesting weapon to watch at work.

EDIT: Just looked it up, saw it was cancelled, a shame. There is mention of CKEM, some planned successor.

There are a few number of systems at Fort Rucker for evaluation. They stopped production in favor of developing the CKEM - Compact Kinetic Energy Missile.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/ckem.htm

[Battlefront.com]

cassh,

Steve - You know in the sniper post you talked about how armour doctrine had changed in light of experience in Iraq - well I'd say in light of Lebanon they were back to square one and that a stand off approach in MOUT was still required.

I think CM:SF will show this to be the case. Driving armor around in direct support of infantry appears to work best when the enemy is isolated, poorly coordinated, moderately armed, and sparsely deployed. Unfortunately for the IDF, the opposite was encountered.

We've been saying for some time now that CM:SF will not be like Iraq. The problem we've had is describing what it will be like. Fallujah has been the closest we've had to point to as being indicitive of what CM:SF is more like. But now Lebanon has given us something closer to what we've got on deck for you guys.

Steve

[dan/california]

If Assad overplays his hand you might even be able to do a AAR by AAR comparison of your baby here to the real war. :cool:

if you have done as good a job as it sounds like you have you will then get that humvee full of money. Please don't forget about us when you are a fat rich defense contractor. :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

I've got some video footage of LOSAT tests... all I can say is it takes all the fun out of being a tanker. There is no escape except a missile malfunction. An Active Defense system would be hard pressed to deploy in time. Even if it could, the chances that it could counter that much kinetic energy to matter are slim to none. Best it could do is keep the parts from scattering over a 1000m radius down to a much more humble 500m radius. Small comfort to everything within the 500m!

The main problem I saw with LOSAT was its size. Even though they successfully tested them being fired from a Humvee, the size meant only a very small number of targets could be effectively engaged. Sure, a battery of two LOSAT Humvees could vaporize any tank platoon in the world, but if the attacking force is company sized, would that be enough? Could be if you take psychological factors into account. If you saw 4 of your 10 tanks gone within 30 seconds or so you might think hanging around for even 10 more seconds is pressing your luck!

Steve

[Wisbech_lad]

Of the 500 ATGM's how many were fired at tanks...? Thought the Hezb also used them as "bunker busters". Or is the 500 figure just ATGM's fired at Israeli tanks?