Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Share

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:49 pm



    Why You think they are using it place You have no enemy tanks in?

    Serious problems with the 5,56 mm caliber effective engagement range and lack of any efficient squad level anti infantry/solid cover weapon



    I have nothing against advanced fire and forget and top-attack weapons as they are cheaper than tank and You can employ them with deadly effect.

    Sure they are cheaper than tank ,but also an HE-Frag round (shot by an MBT or IFV 3-4 km away) is ,at its own time, dozen of times cheaper than an FGM-148 Wink and ,to the contrary of an attacked MBT or IFV, the chances of survival of a Javelin's operator would be very close to zero.

    FGM-148's seeker is effectively "blinded" by IR opaque smoke screen generated by 3D6M and 3D17 grenades (and theirs derivated), even a pair of seconds of lock's break and the Javelin would go totally out of course.

    Moreover when even an ambushed MBT, devoid of any air defense coverage and of active protection, would even fail to blind Javelin guidance and would be ultimately hit, its chances of survival would be much greater than against a "classical" horizontal penetration, even more if the MBT is in movement.

    The imcoing missile could strike anywhere (from top turret ,to top engine vain ,to top of track skirt) and the space passed through by the penetrating jet would be ,at cause of the particular angle of attack, in the order of up to 1/1,5 m instead of up to 5-6 m, lethality of the penetration (accounting for total MBT loss, mobility kill ,fire power kill, or partial crew kill) would be therefore several times inferior to that achieved by an horizontal penetration of the MBT.



    I repeat ,in a conventional war,FGM-148 would be almost totally useless against enemy armored divisions spearhead advancing deep in your territory to destroy your logistic net and your most critical structures, it would play a limited role in urban combat and in some choke point ambushes.



    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:55 pm

    Regular wrote:For example Javelin was accepted in India, US, Ireland because of what ?

    Please note that Javelin has been Rejected here in India though I agree that bribes were paid by the manufacturers . I won't blame the US ( or any country) for bribing because if there is an inherent culture in India to receive bribes , bribes will be paid . It's really good that Javelin has been rejected or else we the taxpayers would have had to foot the bill.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:03 am

    Sujoy wrote:
    What was the reason for rejection? What about Indian nag? Or other atgm systems?

    Mindstorm wrote:

    Why You think they are using it place You have no enemy tanks in?

    Serious problems with the 5,56 mm caliber effective engagement range and lack of any efficient squad level anti infantry/solid cover weapon
    there is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm. And they have good anti infantry weapons too. It's not the case. M3 MAAW with thermobaric warhead can do better job than Javelin




    Sure they are cheaper than tank ,but also an HE-Frag round (shot by an MBT or IFV 3-4 km away) is ,at its own time, dozen of times cheaper than an FGM-148 Wink and ,to the contrary of an attacked MBT or IFV, the chances of survival of a Javelin's operator would be very close to zero.
    I've already stressed out this issue. But still has it's own usage. Would have worked against hordes of blind t-72 perfectly. But times change and we live in a dynamic world where AT teams will have hard time to lay ambush upon tanks. Especially if tank commanders will have access to UAV imaging.
    FGM-148's seeker is effectively "blinded" by IR opaque smoke screen generated by 3D6M and 3D17 grenades (and theirs derivated), even a pair of seconds of lock's break and the Javelin would go totally out of course.
    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    Moreover when even an ambushed MBT, devoid of any air defense coverage and of active protection, would even fail to blind Javelin guidance and would be ultimately hit, its chances of survival would be much greater than against a "classical" horizontal penetration, even more if the MBT is in movement.
    Not sure if there is tank that can be properly protected from top-attack. Still feature to come.
    The imcoing missile could strike anywhere (from top turret ,to top engine vain ,to top of track skirt) and the space passed through by the penetrating jet would be ,at cause of the particular angle of attack, in the order of up to 1/1,5 m instead of up to 5-6 m, lethality of the penetration (accounting for total MBT loss, mobility kill ,fire power kill, or partial crew kill) would be therefore several times inferior to that achieved by an horizontal penetration of the MBT.

    You are right, Javelin missile can't choose where exactly to strike on the target and might not achieve kill.

    I repeat ,in a conventional war,FGM-148 would be almost totally useless against enemy armored divisions spearhead advancing deep in your territory to destroy your logistic net and your most critical structures, it would play a limited role in urban combat and in some choke point ambushes.
    There are so many thing that would be useless in conventional war. Don't see it happening. As You've mentioned, Javelin could be perfect in urban environment, there it would shine. Shoot from buildings and etc. But then You might question what does tank do in urban environment?
    Again, I'm not saying that Javelin is bad or useless, but it is not the best on market and the main disadvantage is it's price.
    avatar
    Zivo

    Posts : 1491
    Points : 1521
    Join date : 2012-04-13
    Location : U.S.A.

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Zivo on Tue Apr 30, 2013 1:31 am

    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    The FGM-148's laser rangefinder will trip the T-90's LWS. But, using both smoke and APS is the best option.

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:50 am

    there is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm. And they have good anti infantry weapons too.


    Nothing wrong ?
    Its ridiculously poor (for lethality, cover penetration and effective range) operational results in the latest theatres of war has opened the greater debate of the latest 30 years on the need to urgently and radically select a new caliber for the main rifle's ammunition of NATO forces.

    Just to name some of the most authorative publication on the subject:

    "Biting the Bullet" , by Anthony G. Williams and Nicholas Drummond

    http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf

    At pag 9 you can read :

    In the open and undulating countryside of Afghanistan, Taliban forces frequently engage ISAF units at distances beyond 300 metres. Using Russian made sniper rifles and machine guns firing high-powered 7.62 mm ammunition (equivalent in performance to the 7.62 mm NATO), the enemy can engage allied forces at ranges of up to 900 metres. Equipped with SA80 weapons firing 5.56 mm ammunition, British troops are unable to return fire because the effectiveness of small calibre 5.56 mm rounds diminishes rapidly at ranges beyond 300 metres; even the long-barrelled L86 light support weapon is ineffective beyond 400 metres. The only recourse is to call in artillery or air support to engage the enemy. But the precious time it takes to coordinate fire support invariably costs lives or allows the enemy to escape.

    The economics of using an inappropriate calibre merit further comment. Infantry platoons equipped with the Javelin anti-tank missile (see Figure 5) frequently use them to engage dug-in enemy positions at ranges of 1,000 metres
    . These are hugely effective and their ability to obliterate large areas makes them ideal for suppression even when they do not kill. But Javelin anti-tank missiles cost in excess of €100,00014 each and with a conservative estimate of 10 missiles fired per week, the annual cost of these munitions alone is in the region of €52 million. Of the total number of missiles fired since 2002, few if any have been used to destroy an enemy tank. Indeed, the total cost of Javelin missiles fired to date would probably be sufficient to re-equip the entire British Army with a new small arms weapon system.

    As you can find the reason for the very "odd" FGM-148's employment in theatres of war ,that you can observe in the hundreds of video present on the net, is very simple....



    "An Army Outgunned : Physics Demands A New Basic Combat Weapon" by Ph.D. Joseph P.Avery

    http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/MilitaryReview/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

    Among the others, at pag 3-4 you can read :

    "The advertised maximum effective range of both the M14 with a 150 gr., 7.62 mm NATO cartridge and the M16’s 62 gr., 5.56 mm M855 NATO cartridge was 460 meters. This equal classification is odd considering the dramatic difference in cartridges.
    “Effective” is the key word. In this instance, it denotes the maximum range a projectile is expected to inflict casualties or damage.
    Both projectiles fired at a paper mache mannequin at 460 meters may sail the distance, but one will probably bounce off.
    As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218- 273 yards) .Therefore, because half of our firefights occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective.
    An excellent 2009 U.S. Army Command and General Staff College study, Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan, brilliantly summarized the problem, and it is not limited to Afghanistan.

    The study concluded that American military weapons, cartridge lethality, combat optics, doctrine, and marksmanship training are vastly inadequate, costing American soldiers their lives.
    After a mountain of operational evidence concluding that the American military’s BCW was vastly inadequate to address a broad array of battlefield dynamics,the Army finally started to take steps to improve the M16’s maximum effective range and lethality.

    The Army itself demonstrated proof of the M16’s obsolescence when the 101st Airborne and other units started using significantly enhanced 7.62 mm M14s in Afghanistan in mountain battles where the M16A4 and M249 proved basically useless.
    In the interim, the soldiers themselves used captured AK-47s to better compete in the mountainous terrain. As the title of this article emphasizes, we are clearly outgunned, and that situation will continue as we fight a geo-diverse global war on terrorism and face advanced new weapons, such as the AK-12, the 5th-generation Russian AK.


    "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" by United States Army Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
    Read it entirely.

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331



    All of that has obviously generated a lot of urgent measures taken directly in the theatres the last very recently (SAS returning to 7,62 caliber ammunitions).

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294631/SAS-use-bigger-bullets-kill-enemy-outright-claiming-shoot-wound-policy-lives-risk.html


    is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm ? Reformulating the statement replacing "wrong" with "right" would produce an assertion surely much more near to reality...... Wink




    And they have good anti infantry weapons too. It's not the case. M3 MAAW with thermobaric warhead can do better job than Javelin

    M3 MAAW has a round with thermobaric warhead ?


    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    Not ,it is effective whenever any MBT's crew (or IFV or APC) in the platoon detect the FGM-148 launch and/or its very clear propulsion signature, at this point it can lay the multispectral opaque aerosol screen (capable to cover the entire platoon for 20-25 seconds), two or three seconds of lock-on break are more than sufficient for the FGM-148 to go irreparably out of course.
    In the mean time the fire point area would be quickly saturated by HE-Frag round...

    If present APS would act as the second layer of defense, on the missiles eventually not going out of course; if present modern anti-tandem top of turret/hull ERA tiles (like those present on the T-90MS) will act as the third layer of defense.
    All of those defense layers (in-built in the vehicles and not taking into account those at division level) are synergistic not mutually exclusive.


    But i continue to ask :
    What would protect, instead, those FGM-148's operators (like those of the video highlighted) from : 30 mm autocannon barrage, 100/125 mm He-Frag rounds, thermobaric tube/gun launched guided missiles, 30mm grenade barrage etc... all shot from well outside FGM-148's maximum engagement range ?



    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:42 am

    Regular wrote:What was the reason for rejection? What about Indian nag? Or other atgm systems?

    The disadvantages of the Javelin that I have outlined in my previous posts in this Thread , plus the weight of the Javelin . India is either scorching hot ( in summers) or blistering cold ( in winters) and the huge weight of the Javelin makes it un suitable in both conditions.

    However, the IA has used an alibi to reject the Javelin by stating that they need 100% ToT .

    443 Nag missiles are supposed to be purchased by the Indian Army . There were problems with the seeker heads and chances are that they will be purchased from Rafael .

    Other ATGMS ( hand held or vehicle mounted) , the IA has in plenty are Konkurs ; Kornet E ; Invar ; RPO-A Shmel; Milan 2T ; Carl Gustav ; C-90 LAW .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Apr 30, 2013 12:51 pm

    Shmel wouldn't be as good in those distances they were using. Kornet would do good as it has good AP missile.

    The latest version of Shmel is reported to be accurate up to 800m or so, which means it is effective against a lot of targets being fired upon in Afghanistan, but I agree a good weapon to replace the Javelin as it is used in Afghanistan needs a couple of kms range and guidance for accuracy. The best replacement is not the big relatively heavy Kornet, it is actually the light portable Metis-M1... considering most of the targets are not armoured a mix of mostly HE warhead missiles would be the much cheaper option.

    Anyways Javelin is not cost efficient system and now it was toppled by other even cheaper but more advanced systems.

    A megaphone to yell out to the bad guys that instead of spending 40K on a missile to kill you will give them 10K US dollars to just go home and you save 30K.

    Garry what You think about todays ATGM systems, Bill 2 or Spike, even Indian Nag?

    I have always had a lot of respect for BILL2... if it was American there would have been millions made. On paper the ARENA can actually deal with BILL2 it is the steeply diving top attack missiles it has problems with due to their steep trajectory.

    Spike looks like a very sensible idea too, though with modern UAVs and digital datalinks I think an electronic connection rather than fibre optics might have been a cheaper and simpler choice... the vast majority of ATGMs have been used against unsophisticated enemies incapable of defeating most simple guidance systems.

    I don't really know enough about the Nag to comment on it, but I am sure it will likely get the job done.

    As a result - as the rounds get newer, their range decreases.

    There is an adapter available that increases the angle of the optical sight for the RPG-7 that extends the range of the newer rockets.

    The main problem with the RPG-29 is its fixed calibre... generally they have followed the pattern of bringing out a new RPG-7 rocket and then releasing a new disposable rocket equivalent. The advantage of the disposable model is that the warhead is the calibre of the tube so the rocket motor can match the warhead size.

    For instance the RPG-22, RPG-26, RPG-27, and RPG-28 have warheads that are matched by the RPG-7 (except the RPG-28). The RPG-27 is a disposable rocket with a 105mm calibre rocket warhead... there is an RPG-7 equivalent and an RPG-29 equivalent. The RPG-28 however has a 125mm calibre rocket warhead but the RPG-29 can't use such a large warhead and I have seen no RPG-7 model because a 125mm warhead with a 40mm rocket tube is just too nose heavy to fly.

    In the disposable model the rocket motor can be larger than the 105mm tube of the RPG-29.

    Common Sense

    For a very long time common sense has been wrong and since proven wrong.

    Russians are aware of Spike & Javelin but have yet not been able to come up with a top attack ATGM . Inability ...? or sheer laziness ?

    Top attack is expensive. Fitting a missile with a thermal imaging camera is not cheap as every time that missile is launched that camera is destroyed. There is also a thermal camera in the launcher. Together they make the system very expensive to buy and to use. The Russians recognise that having a very expensive missile with bankrupt them, so they will either not get many at all, or they will blow their budget to engage tanks they might never face in real combat. Instead they have just made very capable long range missiles and very cheap and simple short range systems that they can produce in enormous numbers and use regularly and export... Metis-M1 is one of their best sellers... it is powerful ( over 950mm of penetration) and it is effective to 2km, which is useful against a range of static targets like MG nests and sniper positions and bunkers. There is a dedicated model with a HE warhead for such use. A three man team can carry a launcher and 5 missiles.

    Javelin can destroy fortified bunkers and can also hit any particular room in a building .

    Like any other ATGM made since the 1970s... the G in ATGM means guided.

    It has a soft-launch, so it can be fired from inside an enclosed space (read bunker or building).

    Not unusual or amazing, though in some situations a useful feature, it is not exactly critical.

    The actual rocket motor ignites some twenty or so meters from the launch location. This moves the signature away from the troops firing the

    The rocket motor of the RPG-7 ignites at about 11 metres from the tube... do you think that makes them invisible?

    The Javelin homes using electro-optical recognition. It actually sees the target and homes on a video image. This means there is no active targetting source (such as a laser or radar) to stop. Javelin is a fire and forget rocket.

    Correction, it homes on an IR image of the target and a tank sitting in the middle of a field with its engine off will not be discriminated by the IR sight to allow a fire and forget attack.

    During tests the target had to be heated by a bank of a dozen hair dryers so that they could get a lock and fire on the old range target.

    They could certainly have guided the missile manually, but that makes it no better than the much much cheaper Metis-M1.

    Or maybe lack of small electronics, but not it's not an issue now, so many foreign companies are more than willing to produce components or sell rights to produce them in Russia.

    Not really an electronics thing... Shkval-M from the Su-25TM and the similar system in the Ka-50 from the late 1980s had video autotracking capability and optronic guidance. The SA-19 SAM on the Tunguska is optronically guided too.

    As far as I can tell I suspect they are waiting for QWIP technology to become cheaper. They are already producing QWIP chips under licence from Thales of France in their Catherine XC thermal cameras they are licence producing now.

    In a nutshell think of the light sensitive chip array in a digital camera. A QWIP sensor is very much like this, but can be sensitive to IR and UV light as well as visible light. It means you can have a sensor chip that can magnify existing light levels like an image intensification scope, but can also see in thermal imager frequencies and can combine the image of normal light, low light levels, and heat to form a composite image that combines the best features of all those technologies.

    The biggest problem with thermal imagers is that although you can see in total darkness a human is an orange blob that is hard to identify, as are vehicles etc. With a QWIP sensor you can use normal video like Spike and a thermal view like javelin on a chip that when it is mass produced might cost a dollar a chip to make.

    Most digital cameras already detect IR light... get your video camera or digital still camera and look through the viewfinder or at the screen and point the camera at your remote control for your TV and press a button on the remote... you can see the flashing IR light.

    Some spotlights used for hunting have IR filters and can be used with digital cameras to see in the dark fairly long distances.

    Thats cool, but Javelin needs time to be locked on target, cooling takes time, so You expose Yourself. Not best thing when You are facing modern tank with thermals.

    More importantly if the tank has IR concealment... even those rubber mats fitted to old T-72s might block the heat signature, or there are a lot of IR signals around the tank that might distract it and you wont get a good lock. Equally an optical port in the missile pointing towards the tank... the Russians have developed a range of anti optics laser systems and the thought that they might not fit them in their brand new armoured vehicles seems a little strange to me.

    BTW at about 120m/s both Javelin and Spike are slow missiles... Igla missiles were tested against Falanga missiles which suggests to mean that Igla-S should be able to shoot both ATGMs out of the sky too.

    And you have assumed that the US will be sitting on it's a$$ till 2020 doing nothing . By then the US/NATO will have far more advanced ATGMs that will be resistant to jamming and any other countermeasures and can hit enemy targets from 2 miles or more .

    And there we have it... this is all about who has the biggest dick.

    If the Russians introduce a new ATGM with diving top attack capability, you think the US response should be to make an even more capable missile...

    With respect the country with the biggest ATGM is not the "winner" or the best country.

    The country that develops weapons that meet its current and near future needs is what we really should be talking about.

    For Javelin to be a good system it is not good enough to just be sophisticated and effective... it needs to do the job (which it does), but it needs to do the job better than other missiles could do it, and that is where it fails because it is simply too expensive.

    It would actually be an ideal weapon for the guerillas as a fire and run away weapon with a good chance against the Abrams because the gas turbine on an Abrams burns very hot and would be an easy IR target from any angle.

    For the US army however they would be better off with something like Milan.

    there is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm.

    There is nothing wrong with 5.56mm as such, but any guerilla force will look for weaknesses and the fact that NATO forces largely replaced all their infantry weapons with weapons in 5.56mm including their squad support weapons (FN Minimi) it was pretty obvious the best (safest) way to fight was from 700-900m with PKMs and SVDs. The chance of a kill is greatly reduced but the chance of getting shot is also greatly reduced.

    It's only effective when lock on is detected and I would rather rely on modern APS than smoke screen.

    The various EO systems that would detect the IR signature of an incoming missile should allow the cheaper smoke screen option to be used in conjunction with APS systems. Drozd and ARENA could both deal with low speed missiles, it was only the steep trajectory that made them vulnerable... I would suspect they have dealt with that issue.

    Not sure if there is tank that can be properly protected from top-attack. Still feature to come.


    The top attack feature of Javelin only works with an IR signature lock. IR dazzlers like Shtora should be effective, and camo systems like Nakidka should too. Launched in conventional mode ARENA and DROZD should be effective.

    is nothing wrong with 5,56 mm ? Reformulating the statement replacing "wrong" with "right" would produce an assertion surely much more near to reality......

    The whole purpose of the 223 was to be effective at normal battlefield ranges. That means 200-300m which is pretty much what it does.

    The problem is not the 223 round, but the NATO armies thinking that because they can hit targets on a shooting range at 600m that it is some sort of replacement for the heavier rounds and heavier weapons like the FN FAL and FN MAG.

    Obviously if you dissect a paper target you learn very little from the wound channel and you can assume because you hit in a fairly lethal place that it would be effective to that range. Of course in the real world the wind and the fact that the shooter is likely tired and hungry and scared and the target is not a white paper target with clearly defined circles showing an aim point and of course is likely moving or perhaps even shooting back and the effective range will shrink dramatically... even with a "good shot".


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Konkurs-M, Shturm-S, Metis-M vs Milan-2, TOW-2, HOT-2

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Tue May 28, 2013 1:29 pm

    I've read that the konkurs, shturm, and all other non tank launched soviet ATGMs of the late 80s never exceeded penetration of above 650mm while the widely used TOW 2s, HOT 2s, MILAN F2s  had at least 800mm pen after ERA and thus NATO was almost completely superior in infantry, helicopter and  vehicle launched ATGMs throughout the late cold war.

    I found these claims highly suspect, but even Russian sources  confirm these  low numbers. Are the penetration numbers of soviet missiles too pessimistic or are  capabilities of  NATO ATGMs exaggerated?

    Another problem is that soviet tank destroyers and helicopters carried too little ATGMs. For example the MTLB shturm had only 12 missiles while the AMX10 HOT had 18 and all Mi-24s never had more than 4 ATGMs while  the AH-1s and AH-64s had 8.

    Did soviet ATGMs have any other advantage other than high speed?
    avatar
    TR1

    Posts : 5679
    Points : 5707
    Join date : 2011-12-06

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  TR1 on Wed May 29, 2013 1:09 am

    Hmm, of the late 80s?

    Shturm and Konkurs are not weapons of the late 80s. By that time Kornet, Metis-M, Attaka and others were around the corner, and they had far higher penetrations. Wich makes sense since NATO armor improvements in the 80s rendered existing AT weapons inadequate.
    If you look @ the date of the weapon, the diameter size, generally HEAT weapons from East and West have similar penetrations. No magic involved with HEAT penetration, it is a simple mechanic.
    avatar
    KomissarBojanchev

    Posts : 1228
    Points : 1385
    Join date : 2012-08-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Varna, Bulgaria

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  KomissarBojanchev on Wed May 29, 2013 5:53 am

    TR1 wrote:Hmm, of the late 80s?

    Shturm and Konkurs are not weapons of the late 80s. By that time Kornet, Metis-M, Attaka and others were around the corner, and they had far higher penetrations. Wich makes sense since NATO armor improvements in the 80s rendered existing AT weapons inadequate.
    If you look @ the date of the weapon, the diameter size, generally HEAT weapons from East and West have similar penetrations. No magic involved with HEAT penetration, it is a simple mechanic.
    Weren't the metis-M and kornet 90s weapons? And on what helicopters was the Ataka-V used on? As far as I know it was specifically designed for the Mi-28 which didn't enter production until 2006.
    avatar
    Regular

    Posts : 2028
    Points : 2032
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Wed May 29, 2013 11:52 am

    NATO was almost completely superior in infantry, helicopter and vehicle launched ATGMs throughout the late cold war.
    Maybe it has something to with Soviet Union downfall when military was effected.

    And about TOW penetration - even upgraded warhead really penetrates 630mm.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed May 29, 2013 1:19 pm

    As TR-1 points out the figures for the Soviet missiles were sufficient for the time they entered service.

    Also figures for western weapons were greatly exaggerated... look at the inability of Hellfire against Abrams tanks as an example.

    It is also important to keep in mind deployment... the best feature of the AT-3 was that it was very widely deployed in enormous numbers.

    Tactics would often be used to maximise their effect... for example set up a minefield to create choke points and to force enemy armoured units to skirt around minefields exposes their sides to long range ATGM attack.

    Equally in the late 1980s the new top attack sensor fused munitions entered Soviet service on Smerch rockets and later in cluster bombs. In the 1990s these were upgraded to add an IR sensor in addition to the MMW radar sensor to distinguish an operational tank from a flat sided rock or a burning tank.

    BTW all the model 2 western missiles were not widely deployed in the 1980s either.

    The vast majority of such weapons spent more time hitting point targets at long range like the Milan in the Falklands or the Shturm and Ataka in Afghanistan. For this role all were pretty effective.

    Another problem is that soviet tank destroyers and helicopters carried too little ATGMs. For example the MTLB shturm had only 12 missiles while the AMX10 HOT had 18 and all Mi-24s never had more than 4 ATGMs while the AH-1s and AH-64s had 8.

    The difference you will find is that every Soviet IFV also had ATGMs, and portable ATGMs were also very widely deployed. The Soviets also tended to deploy more launch platforms, and the Hind could carry 8 missiles and two rocket pods when required with the outer wing pylons wired for two missiles each.

    The most important difference was that the Hind was designed to launch its missiles in forward flight where its missiles were command guided and did not trail wires. Western helicopters in comparison tended to launch missiles in the hover which makes them terribly vulnerable to return fire... stationary targets are vastly more vulnerable than moving targets to ground fire.

    Did soviet ATGMs have any other advantage other than high speed?

    Numbers. Both in deployed systems and also in support weapons like RPG-7.

    Weren't the metis-M and kornet 90s weapons?

    Metis was a late 1970s weapon... Metis-M1 came later.

    And on what helicopters was the Ataka-V used on? As far as I know it was specifically designed for the Mi-28 which didn't enter production until 2006.

    ATAKA was displayed with Mi-28A aircraft in the late 1980s... Vikhr was also developed in the late 1980s, though the Ka-50 was kept secret for a few extra years till about 92 or so.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Wed May 29, 2013 7:53 pm

    What the Konkur does is that it gives a tremendous bang for your buck .

    While an argument can be made that it is a legacy system when compared to the Kornet , fact remains that there are hardly any ATGMs at such affordable price that can ensure a penetration of 800 mm .

    The Konkur is a huge favorite with the Indian Army and recently a deal was signed with Russia to purchase 10,000 Konkurs .

    I 'll wager though that from a distance of 600 meters the Konkurs penetration would be around 650mm RHA compared to the >850mm RHA penetration of the Kornet
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 30, 2013 3:03 am

    Another important factor with guided weapons is that instead of hitting the heaviest armour on a tank... the turret front, that the operator can generally aim for the hull of the vehicle which is often much less well protected.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 30, 2013 10:58 am

    I've read that the konkurs, shturm, and all other non tank launched soviet ATGMs of the late 80s never exceeded penetration of above 650mm while the widely used TOW 2s, HOT 2s, MILAN F2s had at least 800mm pen after ERA and thus NATO


    Overall is correct to assert that NATO dismounted infantry ATGMs was ,in general, more sophisticated than theirs Soviet counterpart in Cold War.

    The reason is that infantry operated ATGMs was considered by NATO analysts almost the only credible weapon (mostly in ambush operations) capable to produce a significant attrition and slow down the advance of Warsaw Pact's armored divisions.

    The bulk of NATO armored and mechanized divisions in facts was heavily overmatched, both quantitatively and qualitatively, by Soviet MBTs and IFVs how ,by now, appear very clearly from the same de-classified NATO's dossier of those years ( please read this document entirely , it will provide a clear picture on how the things were ,at the time, behind the open lies and deep "mist" copiously spread in public accessible media in those years Wink )


    http://216.12.139.91/docs/DOC_0001066239/DOC_0001066239.pdf


    Moreover the combination of the Warsaw Pact's superb and mobile IAD and Frontal Aviation covering them and the selective attacks to NATO airfields (obviously lacking even only the shadow of a similar huge and complex IAD) was considered capable to render conventional aviation component almost irrelevant within 30 hours from beginning of hostilities.

    Infantry operated ATGMs (in particular short range ones , one of the few weapon systems where NATO outproduced URSS) ,easily dispersible and exceling in defensive "hit and run" ambush operations, was therefore the only credible and relatively survivable anti-armored asset in NATO arsenal of the time.

    URSS, on its side, placed instead more emphasis on long range ATGMs, in particular those that was possible to employ also by vehicles, because them was capable to engage NATO infantry hardened positions and ATGM squads fire points from outside theirs maximum engagement range (TOW-2 included) and had a secondary role in downing NATO low flying aircraft or, eventually, helicopters popping out from behind hills.



    NATO was almost completely superior in infantry, helicopter and vehicle launched ATGMs throughout the late cold war.


    At any extension ,in the Reality (that of the documents kept, for obvious reasons, out of public opinions' sight....) of those years, was true practically the exact opposite of that ! Laughing




    Last edited by Mindstorm on Thu May 30, 2013 11:09 am; edited 1 time in total

    Mindstorm

    Posts : 776
    Points : 953
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu May 30, 2013 11:05 am


    Indian Army and recently a deal was signed with Russia to purchase 10,000 Konkurs .

    Yes ,for the precision Konkurs-M.


    .....from a distance of 600 meters the Konkurs penetration would be around 650mm RHA

    Penetration value of CE cumulative charge weapons is obviously independent form range of engagement Wink
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 30, 2013 12:56 pm

    When put in context there were long range and short range ATGMs... the former often heavy and vehicle based, while the latter were lighter and more portable.

    HOT and TOW were the heavies in the west and Milan and Dragon were the lighter shorter range systems.

    The Soviet equivalents were Konkurs and Shturm as the heavies and Fagot and Metis.

    In terms of performance there was not really that much to choose between them.

    Fagot entered service in 1970... its penetration wasn't anything special, but it was easier to use than Sagger... and TOW and Improved TOW weren't that wonderful either...

    Early claims for TOW were in the 600mm range for TOW and 700-800mm for improved TOW but declassified CIA info suggests figures were actually 430mm for the basic TOW and 630mm for Improved TOW.

    Konkurs had penetration in the same range and had greater flight range and similar speed.

    Dragon was a bit of a dog and was inferior to Metis in many ways including penetration, with Metis-M1 being superior to Javelin in terms of penetration.

    HOTs penetration is no better than ATAKA at 800mms, and HOT II increases that to 900mm which is worse than METIS-M1 and no better than Konkurs-M which is much smaller in calibre. HOT III, which didn't enter service till 1998 has better penetration, but also a 150mm calibre warhead.

    Claims of 800mm penetration After ERA are amusing when figures for TOW are so low against RHA without ERA.

    Do you think HOT had some magical warhead that could penetrate double what TOW could penetrate... or were they just whistling Dixie?


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Thu May 30, 2013 1:04 pm

    Mindstorm wrote:Penetration value of CE cumulative charge weapons is obviously independent form range of engagement Wink

    The point I was making is the Konkur M has a firing range of 75 meters - 4000 meters .

    So upto 600 meters the Konkur M can guarantee a penetration of 800 mm RHA . However, beyond 600 meter the penetration level drops .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Thu May 30, 2013 1:39 pm

    The point I was making is the Konkur M has a firing range of 75 meters - 4000 meters .

    So upto 600 meters the Konkur M can guarantee a penetration of 800 mm RHA . However, beyond 600 meter the penetration level drops .

    And the point Mindstorm was making was that the penetration of a HEAT charge is not dependent on range or flight speed of the missile and remains the same at pretty much any range.

    If the warhead of the Konkurs-M penetrates 800mm of armour at 600m then it will penetrate 800mm of armour at 4,000m too.

    That is what made HEAT rounds so appealing to the Soviets as it retained its penetration value at any range you could hit the target... unlike APFSDS rounds which lost penetration performance as they slowed down.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    ATGM Missiles

    Post  Sujoy on Fri May 31, 2013 3:25 pm



    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5358
    Points : 5587
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Werewolf on Fri May 31, 2013 6:09 pm

    Sujoy wrote:

    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Wow, holy cow.
    I don't think that this is an option, developing an ATGM with APFSDS capability.
    ATGM's are recoiless and APFSDS depends only on speed and mass, recoilless version of an APFSDS wouldn't work and nobody could handle an ATGM or better to say a portable Sabot launcher with such massive propellant.
    avatar
    Sujoy

    Posts : 903
    Points : 1069
    Join date : 2012-04-02
    Location : India

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sujoy on Fri May 31, 2013 7:00 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Wow, holy cow.

    I don't think that this is an option, developing an ATGM with APFSDS capability.
    ATGM's are recoiless and APFSDS depends only on speed and mass, recoilless version of an APFSDS wouldn't work and nobody could handle an ATGM or better to say a portable Sabot launcher with such massive propellant.

    The thing is APFSDS rounds still concentrates force in a small impact area . The APFSDS round in any case will be made of a dense material like depleted uranium alloy or tungsten carbide.

    I accept it that a penalty on distance will have to be paid . In other words , one cannot expect to fire an APFSDS round from 1000 m or beyond like a HEAT round. However, in the modern battlefield tanks are hardly engaged by ATGMs from huge distances. The conventional distance would be around 500m - 750m .

    Therefore, the current velocity of release of the Kornet will suffice to release an APFSDS round as well .
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16861
    Points : 17469
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:02 pm

    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Ummm... how would that work?

    The space taken up by a HEAT warhead is not enormous... fitting a propellent charge and a projectile would not be an issue... fitting a barrel that allows the projectile to accelerate to useful speeds will be the real issue and really not practical.

    The only real option would be self forging fragment warheads... already widely used on some mines and top attack submunitions.

    The basic design is a flat metal disk with a huge block of explosive on one side. The explosive is detonated which accelerates the metal disk to enormous speeds... 5-6km/s and in flight towards the target it is reforged into a dart shaped projectile... there is no sabot so it is AP and it is certainly not fin stabilised.

    The advantages are it is a penetrator that uses kinetic energy that doesn't need a gun barrel, the disadvantages are it has to use a relatively soft metal so very hard armours can cause it to shatter rather than penetrate and the fact that it looks more like a shuttlecock used in badminton than a spear so penetration is not ideal.

    Unless it is one of those EM guns that uses a chemical reaction to accelerate a projectile to very high speed very rapidly...

    Therefore, the current velocity of release of the Kornet will suffice to release an APFSDS round as well .

    I doubt another warhead type would be more effective than the HEAT warhead already fitted... the only exception would be an EM gun warhead.

    The likely next step in Russian ATGMs will likely be in an active MMW radar homing head for Krisantema and of course HERMES.

    There was also Baikal.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 390
    Points : 248
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:00 pm

    Werewolf wrote:
    Sujoy wrote:

    I was reading somewhere that a Top Attack version of the Kornet may be on the anvil .

    However , I would be more interested to see if KBP designs an ATGM that can fire APFSDS rounds .

    Wow, holy cow.
    I don't think that this is an option, developing an ATGM with APFSDS capability.
    ATGM's are recoiless and APFSDS depends only on speed and mass, recoilless version of an APFSDS wouldn't work and nobody could handle an ATGM or better to say a portable Sabot launcher with such massive propellant.
    Wink


    http://www.army-technology.com/projects/losat/
    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-166.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_Kinetic_Energy_Missile
    http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2007/february/LockheedMartinSCompactKineticEnergy_3.html
    http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/ckem.html
    http://www.defense-update.com/products/c/ckem.htm

    welcome

    edit; i finally found a good video of it in action ,enjoy. pirat
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiojguQy8pI


    Last edited by Rpg type 7v on Sun Jun 02, 2013 12:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

    Rpg type 7v

    Posts : 390
    Points : 248
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Sat Jun 01, 2013 8:28 pm

    GarryB wrote:
    The basic design is a flat metal disk with a huge block of explosive on one side. The explosive is detonated which accelerates the metal disk to enormous speeds... 5-6km/s and in flight towards the target it is reforged into a dart shaped projectile... there is no sabot so it is AP and it is certainly not fin stabilised.
    Its not flat disc , none is ,and it doesnt have to be metal but the metal is used.
    The shape is more lke a big needle.
    They are fin stabilised ,and use same finns or aditional canards for control.
    GarryB wrote:
    The advantages are it is a penetrator that uses kinetic energy that doesn't need a gun barrel, the disadvantages are it has to use a relatively soft metal so very hard armours can cause it to shatter rather than penetrate and the fact that it looks more like a shuttlecock used in badminton than a spear so penetration is not ideal.
    It depends on the metal liner used that forms the plasma , you want something with quickest heat conductivity/transfer yet very dense in plastic/liquid form = very expensive, ,depleted uranium gets more penetration against DU armour then copper doped with rare earth elements and actinide group.
    GarryB wrote:
    I doubt another warhead type would be more effective than the HEAT warhead already fitted... the only exception would be an EM gun warhead.
    Antimater warhead!
    GarryB wrote:
    The likely next step in Russian ATGMs will likely be in an active MMW radar homing head for Krisantema and of course HERMES.
    yes soviets/ russians lagged in fire & forget capability which was a huge drawback of their antitank missiles . so they tried to compensate with higher missile speed to reduce crew exposure to counterfire which would brake the guidance.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian/Soviet vs US/NATO ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:59 pm