Use of ATGM

[lucero1148]

From what I understand ATGM's being expensive their use is limited only against tanks and APC's. However while watching CNN in a video clip they showed a Humvee using its TOW launcher against a concrete building at point blank range.

During the 1st Iraq War I remember an Apache pilot being court martial for wasting his Hellfire missles at a truck convoy when he should have used his 30mm canon or 2.75 rockets. Now a TOW missle carries about 25lbs of explosives so that's a considerable bang to anyone inside of the house but a pretty expensive bang for the buck. Is this normally how ATGM's are being used now in Iraq? that being the case for CMSF will ATGM's be allowed to be used in similar fashion?

[Dillweed]

I remember the senior DS calling us all together to say uday and qusay had been killed. According to him they "put a TOW through each window of the building" Don't know if thats true.

Are TOWs considered ATGMs? AFAIK they are not really consider to be in the same class as the more modern stuff.

[juan_gigante]

Yeah, I would say that TOWs are not considered modern ATGMs. They certainly are seeming to be used a lot nowadays to make entrances into buildings. There's a 13 or so minute video in one of the threads here of footage from a Super Cobra as it blows stuff up. There are many shots of TOWs being shot at buildings.

[Peter Cairns]

The UK used Milan against Argentinians in the falklands, it wasn't so much doctrine as necessity.

I think it was a Goose Green that they came across HMGs in bunkers. The Milan let them take them out at long range before they chewed up the paras. It wasn't what it was designed or issued for but as it did the job that needed done they used it for it. Pretty much the smart thing to do in the situation.

I've heard something like this described as the "School Run Ferrari". If your car won't strt in the morning to get your kid to school you ask your rich neighbour to drop thenm off in their Ferrari. He agrees because he has a spare front seat, so he can do it.

But if you were going to buy a second car as a run around to drop the kids off at school or get the shopping, you wouldn't spend $200,000 on a ferrari.

So if you have something very expensive in a crisis you use it to do a simple job, but you wouldn't buy something that expensive specifically to do that job.

Take SSN's, they can be used to drop of special forces but that's not their primary purpose, that is hunting other subs and surface ships. They can do it if needs be but you wuldn't build a $1 billion sub just to drop off commando.

So modern or not given their cost ATGM's were designed to take out Tanks and other high value dangerous targets, not bunkers, but if you've got one and a bunker has you pinned down, you use it.

The Apache wasn't designed for CSAR, but it can carry a single man pod that can retrieve a downed pilot, so if it is all you have you use it.

Peter.

[flamingknives]

The Javelin, at $100,000 per shot, has a direct fire mode for attacking bunkers.

[J Ruddy]

TOW Bunker Buster

Does anyone know if the US procures and deploys these?

[ December 01, 2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ]

[Battlefront.com]

The US Army sees its ATGMs as being multi-functional. It is an expensive way to take out a rather inexpensive target, such as a sniper, but it is part of doctrine now. I heard a LTC in OIF speak of authorizing a Javelin to be fired at a sniper on a rooftop. $100,000 to take out a single guy with a single rifle. Expensive, yes, but very effective. When the cleared out that building the found what they think was the remains of the sniper. It was kinda hard to tell due to the nature of the Javelin.

It must be remembered that TOWs were used to take out Saddam's sons. So I'd say that one of the reasons these missiles are used is not because of desperation, but because they are effective. Since the military hasn't really come up a weapon as capable, yet cheaper, than the ATGM it will continue to be used for such things. Especially since the need to engage enemy armor is so small compared to the need to engage dug in enemy infantry. AT4s and other non-guided missiles are great and fairly inexpensive, but they are much more limited (of course).

Steve

[MikeyD]

The Pentagon has dragged its feet so badly for so long on a direct fire cannon for infantry support that there's not much of a range of choices between a 120mm Abrams round and a 25mm Bradley round. Since they don't have any 90mm Mecar light guns handy the infantry are rather obliged to use their TOWs for fire support. On the bright size the Army had procured a million-billion TOWs to fight WWIII with so a TOW 1A is fairly inexpensive. Also, the missile's expense is offest by its accuracy. instead of lobbing a half dozen cannon rounds in the direction of a building they just fire one or two TOWs.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

$100,000 to take out a single guy with a single rifle. Expensive, yes, but very effective.

I don't think it is that expensive when looked at from a pure logistics point of view.

How much does it cost to train a single infanteer? Salary, Kit, Instructors, Food & Housing (while on course), Insurance, plus all the support staff, course developers, etc... all add up pretty quickly. I think $100,000 is probably not to far off the cost to train a single infanteer to combat readyness. When you stop to think that snipers typically target sr NCO's or officers (when given the choice) the costs might triple (or more).

How many infanteers would the sniper likely take-out before he was captured or killed if only 'cheap' small arms weapons and tactics are used against him? Plus what tactical advantage do you get from taking out the sniper? Maybe you have a truck convoy that is being held up until the sector is clear and there's a company 20km away who's effectiveness is seriously marginalized due to a lack of supplies.

$100,000 might not be that expensive for taking out a sniper.

[aka_tom_w]

if you are reading this thread you might find this link interesting

web page ATGMs procurement

this looks like a new one:

$7.9M for Shoulder-Fired "Bunker Defeat Munitions"

Posted 05-Apr-2005 08:02 | Permanent Link

Related stories: Americas - USA, Contracts - Awards, Missiles - Anti-Armor

Small business qualifier Talley Defense Systems Inc. in Mesa, AZ received a $7.9 million sole-source modification to a firm-fixed-price contract for M141 SMAW-D Bunker Defeat Munitions (BDMs), field handling trainers, and training materials. The M141 BDM a disposable version of the USMC's Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) that includes a night sight mounting fixture, weighs 15.7 lbs. and is 32" in length. The BDM system can destroy earth and timber fortifications, breach 8-inch reinforced walls or 12 inches of triple brick, and defeat lightly skinned armored vehicles at effective ranges of 15-500 meters. A thermobaric version of the BDM is in development, as is a thermobraric version of Talley Systems' lighter M72A7 LAW rocket.

Work will be performed in Mesa, AZ and is expected to be complete by May 30, 2006. The U.S. Army Tank-Automotive and Armaments Command in Picatinny, NJ issued the contract (DAAE30-00-C-1103).

[ December 01, 2005, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[flamingknives]

SMAW-D isn't an ATGM. It's an unguided rocket, the projectile being identical used in the USMC's SMAW, in a telescoping kevlar-epoxy tube.

It's been around for a few years, but procurement seemed to be fairly limited until recently.

[Battlefront.com]

I don't think it is that expensive when looked at from a pure logistics point of view.

Expensive compared to other weapons, such as a .50cal sniper round. When compared to the cost of operational tempo, the life of a friendly, etc.... obviously things are a little tougher to compute since it is hard to place a $ value on such things. Clearly, however, it would be better to be able to get the same end result as a Javelin but for a lot less money. In theory that is possible to do.

For example, the XM25/29's airburst round probably could have taken that sniper I mentioned out for a couple of Dollars. But the troops don't have this weapon so they use what they have.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

web page

The revolutionary fire control system for the XM25 employs an advanced laser rangefinder that transmits information to the chambered 25mm round. As the round flies downrange to the target, it precisely measures the distance traveled and detonates at exactly the right moment to deliver maximum effectiveness. The XM25 increases the warfighter's probability of hit-to-kill performance by up to 500 percent over existing weapons. It also extends the effective range of the soldier's individual weapon to more than 500 meters.

OK then!

So in CMx2 will our digital soldiers have this unique weapon to attack with?

interesting

-tom w

[flamingknives]

Initial in-service date is 2007-2008, IIRC.

[Battlefront.com]

The XM25/29 is on hold and as such has no introduction date. It certainly won't be available for CM:SF since the Army no longer has any plans on the table to purchase them in the near future. The XM8, which was the competing weapons program, is completely dead and therefore that weapon will never see service.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Actually, while OICW increment 1 was cancelled (small arms) the XM25 is part of OICW increment 2, which, AFAICT, is still operational. Certainly I've not seen anything regarding the cancellation or suspension of anything other than OICW increment 1

[Battlefront.com]

I have a contact at ATK, the makers of XM25. The funding is held up, so even if on paper it looks active in reality it isn't. This is what XM8 was like for the last year or so. The difference between XM8 and XM25 is that XM8 moved from money withheld to officially cancelled. XM25 is (hopefully) not going to make the same transition. But the project is very much on hold now.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Aha. I may or may not know some projects like that.

[Peter Cairns]

Less expensive or not I doubt a XM25 round can be put in a window first time at a range of 1,000m, or if it can they have improved it out of all recognition since last i looked at it.

For the sniper task I think the thing to watch will be micro UAV,s or at least hand launched but capable of carrying a 40mm grenade on a one way trip....

Peter.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

$100,000 to take out a single guy with a single rifle. Expensive, yes, but very effective.

How about tossing out a briefcase with $10,000 inside and waiting for him to scurry after it?

[lucero1148]

Still it seems rather wasteful using a TOW when a simpler cannon round would have done the trick. In a small scale war like what Syria would be and Iraq is now a 90mm or 105mm gun would be more effective and much cheaper. Tow's & Javelin's are all LOS weapons so they maybe effective but a HE round would be smarter to use.

Economics in the long run would be very telling if a conflict drags on to the point we can't afford to fight.

[Battlefront.com]

Less expensive or not I doubt a XM25 round can be put in a window first time at a range of 1,000m, or if it can they have improved it out of all recognition since last i looked at it.

Of course 1000 is outside the range of a normal small arm, but that works the same in reverse. The enemy sniper was at best using a Druganov, and was proabably well under 500m. The problem was his angle. He was something like 6 stories in the air behind a raised wall around the edge of the building. Firing back at him with small arms was simply not effective. Firing back at him with airburst 40mm rounds would have been. No need for ATGMs or UAVs.

Remember, the more specialized the solution the less likely it will be available at the time you need it. Or at least the more time it will take to employ. Having every squad armed with the XM25 means that capability is right there, all the time, every time. And very cheaply too. Javelin is also available to most squads most of the time, but it is horribly expensive and quite limited in terms of number of opportunities to use before running out. UAVs would be even less common and more expensive than XM25, though theoretically cheaper than a Javelin.

Point is an inexpensive munition in plenty that does the trick is better than an expensive and limited one.

Steve

[Guest Mike]

In WW2 the Brits/Commonwealth used things like 5.5" guns at 50-100m range to take out Japanese bunkers.

they also developed a small rocket - Lilo? - that was something like a 100lb bomb with an aircraft rocket motor attached to the base as an anti-bunker weapon - again range was 50-100 yds & it might take several to get a hit.

Plus flamethrowers.

Using a single ATGM round seems like a fast and effective means to do teh same job with greater lethality and safety.

As a former grunt I'd be all in favour of it.

What's hte use of having overwhelming firepower and technological superiority if you ain't gonna use them??!!

[lucero1148]

All very true but even the US could afford to fight an extended war without going bankrupt. I think the Flaklands was a good example as the Brits quickly ran out of bombs and missles and the US had to dig into their own supplies so they could continue the fight.

[J Ruddy]

Does anyone know if the US Infantry are still issued with good quantities of M72 LAWs? I think they were used as bunker busters in Vietnam, obviouisly not with the effectivenes of a Javelin or TOW, but I'm just curious if the 'Stryker Company' has oodles of these puppies at their disposal.

Max range is 1000 meters, but effective range is only 200 meters so I don't think they's be appropriate in the sniper scenario, I'm just curious if they're used much in Iraq and if ther'll be many in the game.

[Edit - Obviously they are not ATGM's, I'm going off on a bit of a tangent here...]