Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Share
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5266
    Points : 5471
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:56 pm

    You won't see many Osprey like aircrafts in near future since such aircrafts are huge and defacto they are not Helicopters but S/VTOL planes, a big fuselage unmaneuverable and unarmored making them a horrible plattform to make a gunship for anything else but shooting some cavemen.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:34 am

    Infantry will always need a heavy vehicle with a powerful gun... Soviet and Russian experience with the BMP-1 and BMP-2 which led to the BMP-3 show that light automatic cannon are fine and widely deployed around the world, but sometimes a powerful HE punch is what is needed.

    the 73mm gun of the BMP-1 was found to be useful in some situations so even after the BMP-2 entered service the BMP-1 remained to provide direct fire HE firepower.

    the BMP-3 had the combination of both light cannon and heavy gun because both are useful when supporting troops and mean you don't need to call up artillery or air power, or even a tank.

    With all your IFVs carrying direct and indirect fire HE ammo there is less call for your tanks to carry around HE rounds which makes them a little safer.

    A tank sitting on its own is exposed and at risk, but with a full spectrum of support including troops and other vehicles a MBT is just another part of the machine... the fact that they are not invincible is not important.... nothing is invincible on a modern battlefield.... if you make your MRAP vehicles resistant to 12 kg blocks of RDX then the bad guys will work this out and start using 20kg blocks... measure and counter measure.

    It will be much quicker and easier for the enemy to change tactics than to equip your entire army with new equipment.

    It is part of the Javelins greatest weakness... on paper it is excellent, but in practise you will spend most of your time guiding the missile manually like Metis, but the cost will mean you will likely either have fewer Javelins than TOWs because of the price, or you wont be able to afford something else because you blew all your money on a weapon system that can't even use its special feature most of the time.

    I have seen a few videos from afghanistan and most of the time even when they fired it in fire and forget mode they could just as easily have guided it all the way to the target in direct fire mode.

    In other words instead of using that expensive American missile they could simply have used the current model of Milan, or indeed Metis-M1 at a fraction of the cost, yet still dealt with the target as effectively or more so.

    The 750mm penetration of the Javelins warhead suggests it is relatively small... the Metis can penetrate over 950mm of armour, but also comes in a more effective HE warhead model which would be rather more useful for the situation in Afghanistan. You would likely get 600 Metis missiles for the price of one Javelin missile.
    avatar
    d_taddei2

    Posts : 1419
    Points : 1595
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  d_taddei2 on Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:24 am

    I know it's been years since anyone posted on here and I only just read the thread. There has been quite a few things discussed and some things forgotten.

    Firstly a mention of 5.56mm not sure why it was on here but anyway when I was in the forces (uk ) the older guys who used the SLR 7.62mm use to complain about the sa-80 and 5.56mm and would prefer the SLR even the when the army adopted the sa-80 the SAS refused and continued to use the SLR it wasn't for many years later due to government that the SAS had stop using it. The older guys talked of using a matchstick to make the SLR fully automatic. The SAS said they they preferred AKM/AK-47 for penetration and reliability and any enemy they killed were likely to have used the same ammo so ammo could be retained and a lot of the time like in Afghanistan they sometimes dressed like locals so carrying AK was essential very unlikely to see taliban carrying a M4 or other modern western weapons.

    Ok moving on to the topic. Everyone on here has commented on majority of anti tank weapons from shoulder launched to ATGW but a couple of systems haven't been and a couple have been briefly mentioned in conjunction people have talked about Afghanistan/Iraq as well as costs and suitable for the job.

    So when we talk about soviet/Russian vs. US /NATO weapons and which is better there is one key thing to remember here. The role and use of what is needed.

    As people have mentioned the expensive costs of javelin and to an extent Kornet and using them in Afghanistan and Iraq. The fact of the matter is these systems are good at destroying modern enemy using modern tanks and ask yourself when was the last real war that involved both? Today's battlefields are proxy wars using terror groups and low tech equipment in non conventional warfare and urban warfare so we don't really need the dick measuring contest. What we need is who has the best weapon for the job at the best cost as these proxy wars are not short lived conflicts they are years long. So cost is a major factor.

    As we have seen in Syria you don't need high tech weapons it's more about how you use then
    And what your using them for.

    On this thread people have briefly mentioned konkurs this is a great weapon for such warfare accurate enough good range and penetration and the costs are also good. Another forgotten weapon the fagot another suitable weapon although no longer really produced. But then there's the the cheapest ATGW weapon on the market the Sagger extremely cheap the missiles believed to cost less than $1,000 each range of 1.5km and in the right skilled hands still fairly accurate and enough penetration for low tech armour as well buildings and with upgrades it's even better tandem warheads and even the Serbs have designed a missile with a 5km range. And cheap enough to mass produce and mass buy as well as cheap enough to offer good training with live ammo.

    So when we go back to who produces the best blah blah blah it's who produces the best weapon for the situation and for me which every country is producing or buying konkurs and/or Sagger for the new warfare that the world is currently facing then they are the better out of the argument.

    Of course there's also the SPG-9 another suitable weapon for such warfare cheap and with new improved rounds better penetration. Stick it on a 4x4 then shoot and scoot tactics ideal.

    But anyway that's my input on the subject.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 18555
    Points : 19111
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:20 am

    The purpose behind the AT-7 SAXHORN and its AT-13 upgrade... Known in Russia as Metis-M1 is a super cheap mobile little weapon that can be man packed anywhere... three men can carry 5 missiles and the launching post as a very mobile unit.
    Add a light vehicle and you can multiply the number of ready to fire rounds by as much as you like.

    Super cheap, very accurate, and powerful enough to penetrate even the most modern armour from the sides and rear (950mm of armour penetration behind ERA).


    The Russian missiles also have the bonus of HE Frag options for most of their ATGMs because they know half the targets their soldiers are going to use them against will not be armour.

    For shorter ranged engagements the Russians also have a blindingly extensive range of unguided launchers to hit point targets like bunkers and MG positions out to rather decent ranges... from RPO-M and medium and light versions, through reusable and disposable RPG types and of course the engineer model RShG rocket launchers, all with anti armour, HE or incendiary warheads and also smoke rockets too.

    They have also developed a mini HEAT missile for medium to short range engagements against lighter armour called Bulat for armoured vehicles...

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 13, 2018 12:29 am