Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Share

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:53 am

    Mindstorm wrote:
    Rpg type 7v wrote:i dont think you thought about it top attack is best even more so against intrenched infantry or atgm nests compared to metis direct line of sight attack.

    Yes , i've not thought that FGM-148's top attack profile is better against entrenched infantry in comparison with Metis-M1 direct LOS attack profile and the reason is that..........this position represent the precise opposite of reality Razz

    In facts FGM-148's jet stream, produced by its HEAT warhead , would be capable ,in this instance,  to penetrate only one target (personnel or material) before bury itself in the terrain - even more, about the reasons cited by US Army analysts pressing for the development of a thermobaric warhead for the redesigned new iteration of "Javelin" CCMS, is that even the direct attack mode of FGM-148 result widely inefficient against entrenched infantry ,at cause of its lofted approach !-

    Metis M1's profile ,taking into account the same HEAT warhead of a FGM-148, would be several times more efficient in engaging enemy infantry in a house, sandbag enclosed fire position, a building, a bunker and similar.....in facts its 950 mm RHA penetration capable main warhead would penetrate literally from side to side a similar enemy's crowded target destroying any enemy , weapon or stocked material present in its pact.

    Obviously for the same price of a single FGM-148 enemy could procure seven Metis-M1s  ,engaging seven of similar targets in less than half the time required to an FGM-148 to merely complete CLU' s target acquisition and collimation LaughingLaughing

    If someone would be even more unfair with FGM-148 ,it could point out that seven of those Metis-M1s can employ in that reduced time seven optimized thermobaric warheads (on the devastating effects of which is sufficient to ask to IDF soldiers confronting merely very few launchers of the inferior Metis-M in the hands of Hezbollah  Wink ).
    Thermobaric warheads aren't very effective against fast targets. Besides, if you want an accurate long range high-explosive weapon, wouldn't a high velocity grenade launcher (CG, RPG-29), fitted with simple fire-control system, present an option way cheaper than ATGMs of ANY generation?

    Mindstorm
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 737
    Points : 920
    Join date : 2011-07-20

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Mindstorm on Thu Nov 28, 2013 8:36 pm


    etaepsilonk wrote:Thermobaric warheads aren't very effective against fast targets.
    Question Question 

    I truly don't understand the rational of this statement etaepsilonk.


    A thermobaric warhead is the option of choice for engaging soft skinned enemy target , in particular enemy infantry in defilate, in walled structures or in protected fire positions.

    Against those kind of critical targets, nothing of which can be surely classified as fast ones, thermobaric warheads represent a simply devastating offensive mean; against a M3 "Bradley" the operator of one of the seven Metis-M1 that an Army could buy for the same price of a single FGM-148 ,would surely employ a 9M131M missile (completing moreover the entire engagement before than what required to an FGM-148's operator to simply complete target collimation and focal cooling operations......) , to the contrary if one of those seven Metis-M1 operators would spot an FGM-148 anti tank squad with its 1PN86-VI Thermal Sight it would certainly opt for a thermobaric 9M131FM missile and sincerely i would not be there to see the results.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Fri Nov 29, 2013 12:43 am

    Thermobaric warheads aren't very effective against fast targets.
    Correction... some thermobaric warheads are not effective against fast targets because they need to spread the fuel in the air before they detonate.
    Soviet and Russian thermobaric warheads detonate as they spread so they can be used effectively against any target in the open or enclosed.

    Besides, if you want an accurate long range high-explosive weapon, wouldn't a high velocity grenade launcher (CG, RPG-29), fitted with simple fire-control system, present an option way cheaper than ATGMs of ANY generation?
    The key here is long range. CG and RPG-29 are only good for maybe 500m at the most. Metis is effective to four times that distance and is already very cheap.



    _________________
    “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

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sat Nov 30, 2013 1:58 pm

    "Soviet and Russian thermobaric warheads detonate as they spread so they can be used effectively against any target in the open or enclosed."

    Really? An information source for that would be welcome.



    "The key here is long range. CG and RPG-29 are only good for maybe 500m at the most. Metis is effective to four times that distance and is already very cheap."

    Yes, their effective range is short (but max range is, actually, not that far from Metis). That's why I suggested to fit them with compact FC system. That would be pretty much as effective as ATGMs against immobile or slow targets, and VERY cheap (even much cheaper than Metis respekt ), and would have a faster rate of fire as well Smile .

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:24 am

    Really? An information source for that would be welcome.
    Most Russian/Soviet ATGMs that can be fitted with HE warheads use thermobaric payloads. The main purpose of HE warheads for those ATGMs is for use against light aircraft and helos... a thermobaric warhead that spreads its fuel and then detonates would be useless in the down draft of the main rotor of a helicopter... even more useless than a HEAT warhead in fact.

    Yes, their effective range is short (but max range is, actually, not that far from Metis). That's why I suggested to fit them with compact FC system. That would be pretty much as effective as ATGMs against immobile or slow targets, and VERY cheap (even much cheaper than Metis respekt ), and would have a faster rate of fire as well
    But that is the problem... you start adding control surfaces and servos to move those control surfaces, and then you add a guidance method... the cheapest being command guidance means trailing wires... and you end up with METIS-M1 except because it has been adapted from an existing system it will likely have rather lower performance and be more expensive or less effective... or both.

    Not sure how they could have a higher rate of fire than Metis-M1... being calibre restricted they would have to follow a very ballistic path to the target which means lofting them up. That increases the flight distance making flight time longer so unless they were fire and forget (which basically means horrendously expensive) you would have to wait longer between shots leading to a lower rate of fire.


    _________________
    “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

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Sun Dec 01, 2013 1:29 pm

    To GarryB:
    Yes, I understand... but I would like to see an information source, which states about the termobaric warhead detonating instantly.




    "But that is the problem... you start adding control surfaces and servos to move those control surfaces, and then you add a guidance method..."

    There I don't really understand what you say... guidance method proposed by me doesn't require any control surfaces, neither in the grenade (which would remain unguided), nor in the launcher (well, laser (or radar) range finder would have to be steered, but this could be done electronically, without moving parts). Targetting point would be presented in the small display, mounted in the launcher scope.

    For example, there was that Shahin thermal sight. The army proposed to mount a range finder and ballistic computer into it. What I propose, is actually pretty similar to it, just applied to a grenade launcher.





    "Not sure how they could have a higher rate of fire than Metis-M1... being calibre restricted they would have to follow a very ballistic path to the target which means lofting them up. That increases the flight distance making flight time longer so unless they were fire and forget (which basically means horrendously expensive) you would have to wait longer between shots leading to a lower rate of fire."


    Simple... with metis you cannot load another missile until the first has impacted (because of saclos guidance). With unguided rounds (or self-guided, like Javelin) you can load another just after firing. Hence, higher rate of fire Smile  And yes, lofted trajectory increases flight time somewhat, but it's not very significant (relatively compared to, let's say, ballistic missiles Smile  ), also, wire guided missiles themselves are pretty slow. CG round, in comparison, is MUCH faster.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:42 pm

    Newer CG can have targeting tracer projectile shot from the launcher, basically a bullet that matches ballistics of Your round. And it's low tech way to knowing where You can actually hit if You shoot. I don't see need to bring something really high tech, but in the future I don't mind to have ballistic computer even on my side gun.

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:18 am

    Yes, I understand... but I would like to see an information source, which states about the termobaric warhead detonating instantly.
    Sorry, I don't have a link to hand... it was a Janes report on the RPO-A which described it as detonating as the fuel expanded rather than western equivalents that expanded the fuel out into the area and then detonated.

    There I don't really understand what you say... guidance method proposed by me doesn't require any control surfaces, neither in the grenade (which would remain unguided), nor in the launcher (well, laser (or radar) range finder would have to be steered, but this could be done electronically, without moving parts). Targetting point would be presented in the small display, mounted in the launcher scope.

    For example, there was that Shahin thermal sight. The army proposed to mount a range finder and ballistic computer into it. What I propose, is actually pretty similar to it, just applied to a grenade launcher.
    So what you actually mean is sophisticated aiming system with unguided munitions... not the same.

    You could already do that... fit the Shahin sight on the RPO-M.

    The problem is flight time.

    The more time a projectile spends in flight the more its flight path can be influenced by external factors like crosswinds etc.

    Using a ballistic trajectory means firing the rockets up into the air which means crosswinds at different altitudes... very simply there are too many variables and issues with firing rockets that far to hope to get a hit on a stationary target let alone a moving one... and BTW adding a sight costing maybe $30,000 dollars starts to bridge the gap between guided and unguided missiles.

    Simple... with metis you cannot load another missile until the first has impacted (because of saclos guidance). With unguided rounds (or self-guided, like Javelin) you can load another just after firing. Hence, higher rate of fire Smile And yes, lofted trajectory increases flight time somewhat, but it's not very significant (relatively compared to, let's say, ballistic missiles Smile ), also, wire guided missiles themselves are pretty slow. CG round, in comparison, is MUCH faster.
    Sorry... I would rather use a low rate of fire guided missile like Metis-M1 than a lofted CG or RPG. Even at 500m with direct fire a hit is not totally guaranteed... trying to hit at 2km would be largely luck without guidance.

    I don't see need to bring something really high tech, but in the future I don't mind to have ballistic computer even on my side gun.
    The new scopes they are getting look very interesting... I can see why some would like to join the Russian military.

    A VS-121 rifle with Shahin thermal scope detecting targets out to 2km would be an interesting weapon to train with IMHO.


    _________________
    “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

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 02, 2013 9:52 am

    GarryB wrote:
    The new scopes they are getting look very interesting... I can see why some would like to join the Russian military.
    A VS-121 rifle with Shahin thermal scope detecting targets out to 2km would be an interesting weapon to train with IMHO.
    Couple years ago I've seen people complaining about state of Russian optic manufacturers. They were in a coma for some time. And we see new optics not only in shows, but with the troops who need them most are actually using them in Caucasus. I wonder when armies are actually gonna protect their soldiers from being detected by thermals.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Mon Dec 02, 2013 2:24 pm

    To Regular:
    Following your logic, tank crews could also fire targetting rounds to determine the aimponint, yet they prefer to use fire-control-systems instead. Neutral 




    "Couple years ago I've seen people complaining about state of Russian optic manufacturers. They were in a coma for some time. And we see new optics not only in shows, but with the troops who need them most are actually using them in Caucasus. I wonder when armies are actually gonna protect their soldiers from being detected by thermals."

    There are thermal-absorbent suits being developed exactly for this purpose, aren't it?




    To GarryB:
    "Sorry, I don't have a link to hand... it was a Janes report on the RPO-A which described it as detonating as the fuel expanded rather than western equivalents that expanded the fuel out into the area and then detonated."

    I see. But it still looks like it takes time to vaporize and mix. No wonder, it's just the simple laws of physics. Since thermobaric explosives don't carry their oxidizer, they would need some time to be prepared for detonation. Of course, that time could be reduced by new materials (I heard that some substances with aluminum are used for that and for increased power, but I'm not sure). That, and also note that even the thermobaric explosion itself is slower than conventional.
    Besides, your earlier statement about shooting down helis with FAE is wrong. In case of direct impact, HEAT is entirely sufficient. But in the case of proximity detonation, air blast alone is not effective, fragmentation warheads are required.





    "So what you actually mean is sophisticated aiming system with unguided munitions... not the same."

    Actually, it IS the thing I said in the first place. Neutral 





    "Using a ballistic trajectory means firing the rockets up into the air which means crosswinds at different altitudes... very simply there are too many variables and issues with firing rockets that far to hope to get a hit on a stationary target let alone a moving one... and BTW adding a sight costing maybe $30,000 dollars starts to bridge the gap between guided and unguided missiles."

    I had explicibly stated, that this system at long ranges is effective only against immobile, or slow moving targets. Haven't you read it? Also, crosswind is also calculated in the FCS, so this problem isn't as large as you suggest.





    "Sorry... I would rather use a low rate of fire guided missile like Metis-M1 than a lofted CG or RPG. Even at 500m with direct fire a hit is not totally guaranteed... trying to hit at 2km would be largely luck without guidance."

    So you are honestly suggesting, that 200m/s direct LOS projectile would reach the target faster than 400 m/s lofted one? Shocked I think, to determine the truth, we should use mathematics on this one Smile 

    And why largely luck? Nowadays, 6 inch artillery has very little difficulty achieving direct hits at 20 km. Why couldn't an RR round (with fire-control systems) achieve the same at 2km? Neutral 


    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 02, 2013 3:03 pm

    To Regular:
    Following your logic, tank crews could also fire targetting rounds to determine the aimponint, yet they prefer to use fire-control-systems instead
    Some tanks do have coaxial mg that fires tracers for same reason. I believe that I wouldn't work very well if say You fire HEAT and later You reload APFSDS. Advances in FCS let tanks hit targets with first hit even on a move. I very much doubt that CG would be able to achieve same with miniaturized FCU let alone would it be cost worthy?  


    There are thermal-absorbent suits being developed exactly for this purpose, aren't it?
    And thermal-grease that You cover Your face with.. and so on. I only asked when armies will start actually employ it as thermal imaging will be new cool.

    collegeboy16
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1207
    Points : 1234
    Join date : 2012-10-05
    Age : 20
    Location : Roanapur

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  collegeboy16 on Mon Dec 02, 2013 3:51 pm

    Regular wrote:And thermal-grease that You cover Your face with.. and so on. I only asked when armies will start actually employ it as thermal imaging will be new cool.
    thermal paste... not just for your cpu, but also for hiding from predators:twisted: 

    Rpg type 7v
    Junior Lieutenant
    Junior Lieutenant

    Posts : 420
    Points : 284
    Join date : 2011-05-01

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Rpg type 7v on Mon Dec 02, 2013 4:38 pm

    RPO has a traditional small explosive iniciator but added a phosphorus pyropatron that sprays sparks during detonation.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Mon Dec 02, 2013 5:00 pm

    collegeboy16 wrote:
    Regular wrote:And thermal-grease that You cover Your face with.. and so on. I only asked when armies will start actually employ it as thermal imaging will be new cool.
    thermal paste... not just for your cpu, but also for hiding from predators:twisted: 
    Well it's similar to silicon based thermal paste and it's used as face paint. How effective it is is still debatable. Only good thing that it protects face from such hazards like fire and etc. So basically If You get hit by RPO they will only find Your perfectly good face left.

    etaepsilonk
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 717
    Points : 699
    Join date : 2013-11-19

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  etaepsilonk on Tue Dec 03, 2013 7:59 pm

    Regular wrote:
    To Regular:
    Following your logic, tank crews could also fire targetting rounds to determine the aimponint, yet they prefer to use fire-control-systems instead
    Some tanks do have coaxial mg that fires tracers for same reason. I believe that I wouldn't work very well if say You fire HEAT and later You reload APFSDS. Advances in FCS let tanks hit targets with first hit even on a move. I very much doubt that CG would be able to achieve same with miniaturized FCU let alone would it be cost worthy?  


    There are thermal-absorbent suits being developed exactly for this purpose, aren't it?
    And thermal-grease that You cover Your face with.. and so on. I only asked when armies will start actually employ it as thermal imaging will be new cool.
    I would think, that mg is fired to determine the cross-wind, in case tank is at the edge of the forest, for example. And about FCS miniaturization. That's already mature, actually Smile  Some systems (FGM-172 SRAW, your mentioned NLAW) have similar targetting systems.

    About thermal absorbing grease. By the looks of it, it seems a pretty ridiculous idea. Sophisticated balaclava would likely be a much better solution.


    To Rpg type 7v:
    Interesting information, thanks Smile

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:16 am

    I wonder when armies are actually gonna protect their soldiers from being detected by thermals.
    Most modern uniforms have chemical treatments to reduce their IR signatures.

    Ratnik and its future replacements also have such things too.

    Early treatments washed out fairly easily and so were not so good but I expect newer chemical treatments will be more effective.

    Problem is that thermal sights are becoming more useful and cheaper too.

    The main problem with thermals is that it shows heat, not light, so it is rather difficult to distinguish different people... the main way would be the type of weapon being used... but obviously in places like the Caucasus that wont be that helpful...

    Vehicle camouflage systems like Nakidka try to conceal the vehicle in visible, IR and radar wavelengths.

    Following your logic, tank crews could also fire targetting rounds to determine the aimponint, yet they prefer to use fire-control-systems instead.
    The use of a spotting rifle is a common method of checking the aim for light portable anti armour weapons... I believe the LAW80 used a spotting scope as well, with ammo calibrated so its trajectory is the same as the main weapon. The Russians have a gun insert that holds a small rifle with an ammo feed for about 5 rounds or so in 14.5mm calibre for training that fires a 14.5mm calibre projectile that has a ballistic path similar to a 125mm shell. The projectile itself has a flash explosive so you can see where the round hits and a tracer element so you can follow the round from 1km to about 2km... which is its effective range as a training round... much cheaper than 125mm rounds for training purposes while giving a much more realistic idea of where the round will go than just pretending.

    But it still looks like it takes time to vaporize and mix.
    No.... the impression I got was that it detonated as it expanded so there was very little delay.

    Older western FAE weapons were easy to spot as they tended to look like they created a grey cloud for an explosion before a bright orange flash of that grey cloud. The Russian Thermobaric weapons I have seen explode (like RPO and TOS just look like orange flashes to me.

    Since thermobaric explosives don't carry their oxidizer, they would need some time to be prepared for detonation.
    The Soviet and now Russian ones detonate as they expand.

    I heard that some substances with aluminum are used for that and for increased power, but I'm not sure
    Aluminium powder is added to HE and even black powder... the former in HEI or high explosive incendiary, and the latter... to make the white sparks in fireworks.

    That, and also note that even the thermobaric explosion itself is slower than conventional.
    Not that much slower, but longer and hotter... for a while the US was investigating them for blowing up targets that might include WMDs like bio and chem warfare agents with the intention of destroying factories and storage areas but also incinerating the contents in a bid to make them safe.

    Besides, your earlier statement about shooting down helis with FAE is wrong. In case of direct impact, HEAT is entirely sufficient. But in the case of proximity detonation, air blast alone is not effective, fragmentation warheads are required.
    Helicopters are not MBT... the blast equivalent of a 4-7kg thermobaric warhead would be equivalent to up to 15-20kgs of HE and even if it could not penetrate the armour of a Hokum or Havoc would shatter its main rotor blades and likely turn the crew inside into blancmange.

    Against UAVs it would be plenty as most UAVs are fairly fragile, and against the most common target... MG nests or snipers it would also be very effective too. In comparison a standard attack hand grenade has rather less than 1kg of HE...

    I had explicibly stated, that this system at long ranges is effective only against immobile, or slow moving targets. Haven't you read it? Also, crosswind is also calculated in the FCS, so this problem isn't as large as you suggest.
    The problem is rather more complex than you seem to be suggesting.

    Sophisticated sights and laser range finders don't make assault rifles sniper rifles. The thermal sight the Russians are introducing that can detect humans at 2km range does not mean you can fit it to any old AK and get hits first shot. There is only one Kalashnikov you could do that with and it would be a PKP or PKM.

    The chances of a kill on a stationary target 500m away with an RPG or CG are no where near 100%... thinking hits at more than 1,000m would even just be likely is stretching things in my opinion.

    So you are honestly suggesting, that 200m/s direct LOS projectile would reach the target faster than 400 m/s lofted one? Shocked I think, to determine the truth, we should use mathematics on this one Smile
    Not sure about CG but the current RPG-29 does not have a sustainer motor on the rocket so after launch it only gets slower and slower till it hits the target or the ground. The RPG-7 has a sustainer motor that accelerates it to higher speed, but with a modern 105mm warhead it has the ballistic path of a rainbow and the rocket motor burns out at 900m, so by 2,000m it will likely get passed by the Metis. RPG-29 would be worse off and the CG is a recoilless rifle so unless you fit it with a rocket motor... which will make it heavier... more expensive... and less predictable... what is its trajectory as it burns fuel and reduces in weight?

    Why couldn't an RR round (with fire-control systems) achieve the same at 2km?
    Because artillery has a whole network with weather balloons to determine wind at different altitudes 24/7 to calculate trajectory... shooting rockets in the mountains or even over flat open plains can involve lots of variable the average soldier is not in a position to compensate for.

    Metis-M1 already exists... based on a model that entered service in 1977, and does the job very cheaply and effectively.

    RPG units generally operate as close range defence for ATGM teams or in units as direct fire support... they likely wont even see enemy MG positions 2km away let alone be tasked with engaging them.

    Some tanks do have coaxial mg that fires tracers for same reason.
    Would be rather rare for a standard coaxial MG to have the same trajectory as the main gun of the tank. I remember the British had an MG called the BESA that was a 50 cal weapon that could be used as a spotting rifle... the huge advantage is that it is always ready to go... no warming up or collecting data... just fire and observe... get a hit and fire the main gun... miss and adjust your aim and fire again... Cheap, simple, and effective.


    I would think, that mg is fired to determine the cross-wind, in case tank is at the edge of the forest, for example.
    light small MG ammo will not be effected by cross winds the same as full calibre tank ammo would. It is mostly for trajectory rather than external influences like temp and wind...



    _________________
    “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

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  nemrod on Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:59 pm

    NickM wrote:The best top attack , anti tank , anti bunker missile is the FGM 148 Javelin . There is absolutely no way that it can be stopped and no other country has anything that is remotely close to the Javelin .
    Really ?
    Here are some examples that anti tank missiles can do, and belonged by other countries.






    As in this photo, americans cleared off from Iraq.

    US aknowaledged they lost at least 80 M1 Abrams, the reality, the figure must be exceed 200.

    No use to add more about Merkava's fate, the poor  "god's chariot" did not weigh heavily against AT-13, and AT-14 during 2006 war in Lebanon.
    Is it worth to talk about the AT-3 -well known by israelis- ?


    NickM wrote:
    The T90s do NOT stand a chance against the FGM 148 .
    Well, and M1 Abrams ? As we 've seen above, the concept of tank is useless against every anti tank missiles. It is noteworthy to remember that during early 2000's Palestinians sucessufully destroyed a Merkava III by only a RPG-7.
    No use to make a relation with M1 Abrams in Iraq against even a basic RPG-7.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 744
    Points : 904
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:30 am

    nemrod you mention the AT-3 (below)

    No use to add more about Merkava's fate, the poor  "god's chariot" did not weigh heavily against AT-13, and AT-14 during 2006 war in Lebanon.
    Is it worth to talk about the AT-3 -well known by israelis- ?


    The AT-3 is in probably the cheapest ATGW available is still capable in the right hands, i remember reading an article somewhere where it states that it can be produced for under $1,000 which is pretty impressive. Its also in wide spread use.

    Going back to tanks vs. anti tank weapons, i remember the RPG-29 was a nightmare for M1 Abrams and even Challenger 2, and this is a shoulder launched weapon, people forget that multiple hits from even a RPG-7 can mean death to modern tanks. I think its easier to make a missle more deadly than it is to make a tank safer against anti tank weapons. decades ago the thought was that being in a tank was one of the safest places to be on the battle field, now its the opposite, when i was in the forces people use to see tanks as an expensive coffin, as soon as they entered the battlefield it attracted enemy fire power, i personally wouldnt want to be in a tank in todays battlefields, especially with the advancements on anti tank weapons and the use of dedicated attack helicopters.


    Last edited by d_taddei2 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:30 am; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

    GarryB
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 15487
    Points : 16194
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  GarryB on Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:25 am

    The fight between armour and weapon continues... some might say weapon is currently winning, but Armata with APS and jamming systems and camouflage and new armour... active and passive will likely make all current anti armour weapons ineffective... but of course the weapons designers will rise to the challenge.


    _________________
    “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

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Werewolf on Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:12 am

    The best top attack , anti tank , anti bunker missile is the FGM 148 Javelin . There is absolutely no way that it can be stopped and no other country has anything that is remotely close to the Javelin

    I find this statement very amusing.

    "Best top attack weapon"

    To call it best in something it actually needs to be effective in its hit probability. Effecient is a military terminology of Hit probabilities of 0.8 at least at its effective range, which the FGM-148 Javelin is not. The reports to this weapon vary alot for its hit probability under different temperatures (day times) due the infrared distortion that comes from heated up grounds especially in wars the US currently uses Javelins. The weapon was reportetly scary for the operators, when the missile would go against its designated target it was recognizable but when the missile would miss they could tell by the trajectory right after the missile left its launcher and soldiers were scared to where it would hit. The Headquarters department of the Army stated depending on weather,temperature all that have not been simulated in the tests in the simulation of the hprob of Javelin, have an effect on the hit probability which is in combat situations less than the accuracy simulations they have conducted with their advertized 94% hprob.

    https://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-22-37.pdf Chapter E-8

    Infrared Crossover
    E-35. Twice a day, around dawn and dusk, the temperatures of the tank, grass, and trees cross over
    from being hotter than the river to being cooler (Figure E-12). These two periods are known as IR
    crossover because of the change in the temperature relationships and the visual effect that it produces.
    During these two periods, everything in the target scene is about the same temperature, which means
    there are few, if any measurable ΔTs. As shown earlier, when there is no measurable ΔT, the gunner
    cannot distinguish a target from its background.

    To call it best Top Attack weapon while it has such a short range of only 2000m max while this range in combat situations will be effected by bad weather and temperature it will only shrink. This short range leaves it well within enemy tanks engagement range and visually exposed due the LOS weapon guidance this weapon obviously needs. Further, since Mindstorm in his post 141.

    http://www.russiadefence.net/t3493p135-rpg-rpo-thread

    Well i only need to quote his great posts to regarding exact this made claims.

    To summerize it

    To be the best it needs to fullfil points such as, low or at least moderate costs per unit so the weapon can be distributed to units in sufficient amount, effective range to stay out of the enemies engagement evelope or not be in NLOS, dedicated warhead to fullfill the specified job such as "Bunker busting" which is not the case for Tandem HEAT rounds, which will have quite low of an effect on bunkers with just some spall and a hole in the concrete, with remaining enemy forces uneffected by the weapon inside the bunker which are not in the direct path of the penetrator or spall.

    To bring that in literary effusion so people can be erroused by it i repost mindstorm addressing all those claims.

    And where come from this laughable notion ? LaughingLaughing

    Incredible how similar low level fairy tales can continue to survive in the average troll mind for so long....


    FGM-148 has a maximum engagement range of 2000 meters in ideal conditions ( practically in the Metis-M1's ballpark Wink) and was conceived as nothing more than an improved substitute of M-47 with enough maximum fire range to allow the FGM-148 ATGM team to at least remain outside of enemy MBT''s coaxial machine gun in close range ambush ; obviously it could NEVER be employed as the main dismounted/motorized infantry ATGM weapon for large scale anti-armoured/IFV operations (TOW remain still today the US Army main anti armour for high intensity ground wars) ,for the simple reason that the immense stand-off range and lethality advantage exhibited by almost any enemy battlefield contesting systems (such as medium caliber auto-cannons ,wide caliber grenade launchers , IFV/MBT's HE-Frag rounds with programmable fuses, tube and gun launched guided missiles etc....) would render the recollection of a FGM-148's teams ,after a battle against the armoured-mechanized forces of any serious ground force, a true challenge even for the Jigsaw puzzle world champion........


    FGM-148 is a fearfully cursed design ,characterized by ridiculous cost , maintenance's fragility and manufacturing complexity (all factors codifying for enormously reduced presence and fire density on the battlefield) total lack of any efficient ductility of employment against different kind of battlefield's challenge (meaning vastly reduced survival for the operators against any heterogeneous enemy menaces) a lock-on mode extremely frail for such a class of weapon and very easy to break for any up-to date countermeasure systems mounted on same generation of MBT/IFV/APC (such as the multispectral 3D6M and 3D17 aerosol) and ,in the end, one of the MOST LAUGHABLE effective target engagement time of any weapon in its category ever Laughing ( do you know , before "forget" ,someone should manage to "fire" in the first instance Razz before an advanced enemy manage to choose in what way vaporize you...)





    When one of those FGM-148 teams (coming from nations literally loving to self-praise the, only supposed, virtues of theirs cursed and heavily mistaken weapon designs, pointing at operations against third world enemies totally incapable to defend themselves Razz ) will see what happen when 7-8 thermobaric Metis-M1 (for remain silent of any HE-frag programmable round) with about the same cost of a single FGM-148, will come from different directions at obliterate theirs fire position and other two or three squads or support vehicles in the same time required for them to merely initiate focal coolant operation, anyone will understand the real meaning of COST-EFFICIENT weapon conceived for large scale warfare against a world level enemy .

    Meaning the FGM-148 Javelin could not qualify for any of your claimed "bests" it is in.

    I am not up to date on the latest developments of countries like china on top attack weapons, but there are such weapons that at least qualify for the claim "best" or at least actually effective Top attack weapons like the Spike, which can be fired without the need of LOS to the target, leaving it away from the enemy tanks engagement range and with a guidance that can be adopted to situation to keep the hprob "effective" due the launch and update mode the oeprator himself can choose targets when the missile itself is already fired.

    The best current AT weapon for infantry is the Kornet with several versions that can also be adopted to for the use of "Anti Bunker" with thermobaric weapons staying well outside the weapons range of enemy tanks with 5500m and Thermobaric weapons are mainly used and have high effeciency against bunkers, which eleminates your 3rd claim.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  nemrod on Tue Jan 20, 2015 2:08 pm

    d_taddei2 wrote:nemrod you mention the AT-3 (below)

    No use to add more about Merkava's fate, the poor  "god's chariot" did not weigh heavily against AT-13, and AT-14 during 2006 war in Lebanon.
    Is it worth to talk about the AT-3 -well known by israelis- ?

    The AT-3 is in probably the cheapest ATGW available is still capable in the right hands, i remember reading an article somewhere where it states that it can be produced for under $1,000 which is pretty impressive. Its also in wide spread use.



    I've never said that the AT-3 is null, on contrary. The history of the AT-3 Sagger is a saga, and maybe one the best regarding anti-tank missiles. The AT-3 Sagger starts in the ground of Vietnam, and it demonstrasted how efficient it was. During the October 1973's war, AT-3 was may be the king of this war, inflicting huge, very huge blow to israeli tanks and armored vehicles. The AT-3 Sagger was responsible of the most israelis armored vehicles losses, indeed several hundreds were completly burnt because of the AT-3 Sagger, this is why, US underwent a huge bridgehead full of tanks, fighters, and US soldiers that participated directly to fights.
    The AT-3 Sagger inflicted severe blows to israeli armored vehicles during the 1982's war against Lebanon. Untill now, no doubts, this hardware is still effective, maybe not against the modern AMX Leclerc, M1 Abrams, or the newest Merkava, but it stay a redoutable threat against every armored vehicles.




    d_taddei2 wrote:
    Going back to tanks vs. anti tank weapons, i remember the RPG-29 was a nightmare for M1 Abrams and even Challenger 2, .....
    This is the main reason why US cleared off Iraq, because they had no choice.


    d_taddei2 wrote:
    ....I think its easier to make a missle more deadly than it is to make a tank safer against anti tank weapons. decades ago the thought was that being in a tank was one of the safest places to be on the battle field, now its the opposite, when i was in the forces people use to see tanks as an expensive coffin, as soon as they entered the battlefield it attracted enemy fire power, i personally wouldnt want to be in a tank in todays battlefields, especially with the advancements on anti tank weapons and the use of dedicated attack helicopters.
    This is why, I am among those who think the Tank era is finished. It started with German's Wehrmacht between 1938 untill 1941. The decline started in front of Moscow during the winter 1941-42.
    If Kursk was indeed a battle of tanks, nevertheless, the main actor was the Sturmovik, and many other soviet fighter-bombers.
    The war of October 1973 thanks to the AT-3 Sagger signed the definitly the end of tank era. With Lebanon War, and US occupation in Iraq, it was the end of armored vehicles.

    Regular
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 1956
    Points : 1963
    Join date : 2013-03-10
    Location : Western Hemisphere.. mostly

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Regular on Tue Jan 20, 2015 4:54 pm

    Well I for one think Merkava tanks did OK in 2006 Lebanon. They got hit plenty of times. Loses where pretty low. And battlefield threats were really high. It was more or less errors of their leadership.
    If You look at Ukrainian civil war, tanks were popping before rebels even had artillery systems and ATGMs. Then again I would rather blame the crew and leadership rather than tanks.

    d_taddei2
    Captain
    Captain

    Posts : 744
    Points : 904
    Join date : 2013-05-11
    Location : Scotland UK

    reply

    Post  d_taddei2 on Tue Jan 20, 2015 5:40 pm

    Nemrod i wasn't going against what you said i was backing up what you said by adding to what you had to say, i for one think the AT-3 is still pretty useful considering its cheap to produce and and reasonable long range.

    As for the RPG-29 i totally agree the USA wouldn't even let the new Iraqi army have the RPG-29 in case in fell into the wrong hands. Shoulder launched unguided weapons like the RPG-29 are still deadly to modern tanks only drawback is the range. I think your right that heavy tanks days could well be numbered, they are still useful but in very few circumstances, dedicated ATGW vehicles as well are becoming more popular i personally think the Khrizantema-S tank destroyer is probably the best ATGW vehicle out there. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a 60-70 ton tank with Khrizantema-S lurking about.

    nemrod
    Major
    Major

    Posts : 806
    Points : 1309
    Join date : 2012-09-11

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  nemrod on Tue Jan 20, 2015 9:49 pm

    Regular wrote:Well I for one think Merkava tanks did OK in 2006 Lebanon. They got hit plenty of times. Loses where pretty low. And battlefield threats were really high. It was more or less errors of their leadership.
    You are one of  the rare who think like that. Well, if you are happy, let's say Israelis' campaign in Lebanon during summer 2006 was a success.
    Let's add Israel crushed Hizbollah, and after....If you are happy...Think what you want. Even most the israelis distrut now all their hierarchy and their weaponneries, including the most extremists who are now leaving Israel.
    The figure was at least 40 Merkava completly destroyed,  several dozens  others disabled, for that reason, since 2006 Israel did not dare a new war against Hizbolllah, they know it could be the last war for Israel.


    Regular wrote:
    If You look at Ukrainian civil war, tanks were popping before rebels even had artillery systems and ATGMs. Then again I would rather blame the crew and leadership rather than tanks.

    Again, the tank is useless without air coverture. Even the President Porochenko acknowledged that they lost more than half of their potential.


    d_taddei2 wrote:Nemrod i wasn't going against what you said i was backing up what you said by adding to what you had to say, i for one think the AT-3 is still pretty useful considering its cheap to produce and and reasonable long range.

    As for the RPG-29 i totally agree the USA wouldn't even let the new Iraqi army have the RPG-29 in case in fell into the wrong hands. Shoulder launched unguided weapons like the RPG-29 are still deadly to modern tanks only drawback is the range. I think your right that heavy tanks days could well be numbered, they are still useful but in very few circumstances, dedicated ATGW vehicles as well are becoming more popular i personally think the Khrizantema-S tank destroyer is probably the best ATGW vehicle out there. I certainly wouldn't want to be in a 60-70 ton tank with Khrizantema-S lurking about.

    The tank, or armored vehicles are still necessary but only as platform to occup temporary a country, or an area, but the tank is no more decisive in the battlefield. It could be engage only with air support, without air support, no tanks attacks.
    I see the future of the battlefield with new platform, like new version of V-22 Osprey, equiped with missiles, cannons, rockets -Iam waiting Russia"s design-. As the tank era is ended, they will have to find a subsitution, but nowadays, they lack money. We are in fact in a transition period, where staff army in world are temporizing, waiting a better moment - in that time we will see what Russia will develop-.
    I know USSR was in fact at the point to develop their version of V-22, but the collapse of Soviet Union deter it.

    Werewolf
    Colonel
    Colonel

    Posts : 5391
    Points : 5640
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western 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.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Russian vs NATO/Western ATGMs

    Post  Sponsored content Today at 9:50 am


      Current date/time is Sat Dec 10, 2016 9:50 am