Serbian Armed Forces

General Ljubiša Diković among other stuff in this video annoynced already like 6-7 times delayed KuB air defence system modernisation (systems i spent my service on).

George1 wrote:Pantsyr-1 for guarding air bases and Tor-M1/Buk-M1 for ground forces would be good for Serbia

Serbs did express interest in Buk, S300 and Pancir S, however i dont think there is money available for any of those. Seems our Kubs will be modernised, Nevas already went though some limited modernisations and overhauls to S-125M1T standard which allows crew to operate them further away from actual radar and launchers, 500m if i recall. There were few times talks about new fighters and air defence Systems with Russia but there is simply not enough money. Ideally we would replace Nevas asap, modernise Kubs and get one SHORAD system to get rid of old systems like BOV3 and 9K31 Strela-1 as they are getting obsolete.

However its not secret that some high ranking officers from Serbian 250th air defence brigade were in France to visit their units of same kind and they were presented Aster system possibly with goal of selling it to us.

Rare photo from few years ago, "destruction" of outdated and uneconomic tanks in Serbian army. These T55s were naturally replaced with modernised thin air.

Serbian army during june will accept into service two used-second hand 3D radars from Slovenia. This was annoynced by chief of defence technology of Serbian MoD general-m Bojan Zrnić. US built radars AN/TPS-70 are in good shape and well maintained, also they are newer than radars of same type that Serbian Army operates atm, which were obtained during 80s. Radars were bought on international tender, with special permissions (Probably US blessing).



Slovenia replaced them with Ground Master 403 built by Thales-Raytheon Systems group due to high operation costs.


Source: http://www.b92.net/info/vesti/index.php?yyyy=2016&mm=03&dd=19&nav_category=12&nav_id=1109749

Serbian Air Force got new hangar:





Even tho hangar was unfunded for years and it went very slow, suddenly now just before elections it gets finished, ofc they didnt miss to mention how its "read to host 2 new helicopters from Russia".

"The great success of the Army of Serbia

A ten-member team of the Army of Serbia (Special Brigade) was in the UK where they took part in the marksmanship competition organized by the First Division of the Army of Great Britain. The competition included two categories, pistol Glock 17 and the gun SA 80. During the competition, participants performed in ten very demanding tactical situations with both types of weapons. In the competition of 23 teams, in handgun category Serbian team won first place in the team standings, a sergeant first class Jovica Bubalo first place in the individual standings. In the discipline assault rifle, team of the Serbian Army took the seventh place.

Major General Giles Hill, stressed the importance of fire training for each army and also commended members of the Army of Serbia for the results achieved. To the Members of the Serbian Special Brigade, the hosts were the members of the Royal Irish Regiment ( "1 IRISH"), which continues the tradition of 10th, 16th and 36th divisions, units that together with Serbian army fought during WW1 on Greek front."



Not bad considering fact our guys never had chance to train with SA80.

Krav Maga in Serbia

International Military exercise "Platinum Wolf 16", Serbian Army base "Jug" and proving grounds "Borovac":

From todays military live fire exercise on Pešter, freshly returned to service Praga M53/59 AA gun. Those were retired after NATO bombing and just recently returned into service, 48 of them and are attached in batteries of 6 per each of 8 mechanised batallions.

Serbian peacekeepers dispatched to peacekeeping mission to Lebanon, ceremony:

so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

d_taddei2 wrote:so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

Malytka is mounted in field only on BVP-80, BOV-1 and Gazella-Gama helicopters.

Also it seems that Bumbar will be shelved, apparently they are having issues with stability of missile in flight and price tag is way too high for our armed forces. Also it has 600m range not 1000m, variant with 1000m range was proposed for development but it was never made. Reason was that it would add 2kg to the missile and it would go above weight limitations required by Serbian Army.

There also was word of Bumbar "3000" as they called it which was supposed to grow into vehicle carried 3000m range missile with same warhead however it never went further than words.

Serbian company Krušik obtained licence for AT-4 Spigot (allegedly) but never produced even a single unit ever, as war in 90s and financial issues made it impossible. There was also domestic development in same class called DRUG, which went fairly far away but then was stopped somewhere in the 90s due to financial reasons.

These modifications of Malytka are just ways to slightly improve badly outdated equipment we have without spending huge amounts of money for real decent systems, money which we do not have. Last year Serbian army spent i belive 12 million USD on procurement of new equipment. For that kind of money in terms of military equipment you can buy..well...nothing.

Militarov wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

Malytka is mounted in field only on BVP-80, BOV-1 and Gazella-Gama helicopters.

Also it seems that Bumbar will be shelved, apparently they are having issues with stability of missile in flight and price tag is way too high for our armed forces. Also it has 600m range not 1000m, variant with 1000m range was proposed for development but it was never made. Reason was that it would add 2kg to the missile and it would go above weight limitations required by Serbian Army.

There also was word of Bumbar "3000" as they called it which was supposed to grow into vehicle carried 3000m range missile with same warhead however it never went further than words.

Serbian company Krušik obtained licence for AT-4 Spigot (allegedly) but never produced even a single unit ever, as war in 90s and financial issues made it impossible. There was also domestic development in same class called DRUG, which went fairly far away but then was stopped somewhere in the 90s due to financial reasons.

These modifications of Malytka are just ways to slightly improve badly outdated equipment we have without spending huge amounts of money for real decent systems, money which we do not have. Last year Serbian army spent i belive 12 million USD on procurement of new equipment. For that kind of money in terms of military equipment you can buy..well...nothing.

wow $12m that really is next to nothing, its a shame as i actually think for single small country Serbia comes up with some decent stuff but just doesn't have the cash to put it into full production or to buy it in good numbers, the Nora 52-B and Sora 122mm are good.

I did think the Bumbar was 600m but when i went onto manufacturer website it stated 1000m but like you said this must have been a different version.

i once saw a picture of a Serbian Mi-8 with AT-3 on it but i think the picture was taken at some sort of promo fair/show.

also do you know if Serbia ever upgraded any of its BTR-50 to BTR-50S??? which i kinda felt was quite a good upgrade for something so outdated but then i thought the armour of the vehicle was a bit of draw back, and the vehicle being pretty big would be an easy target. The only thing really the BTR-50 can be useful for now is either command, comms, ambulance, transport of ammo or some sort of engineer vehicle, but i would say ambulance would be best suited due its size which is ideal for stretchers and medical equipment, but obviously this would require some modifications to the hull, i believe there was a Lebanese version which was turned into medivac.

but anyway i actually think the 2T5 isn't all that bad and its good that they are making use of what they have. Its a real shame about the budget, as Serbian forces seem pretty professional and capable.

d_taddei2 wrote:

Militarov wrote:

d_taddei2 wrote:so it seems that the Serbs like their AT-3 sagger's, not only do they mount them on just about any armoured vehicle and helicopter, and have upgraded to the Malyutka-2T, but they have done another upgrade (which was news to me Sorry if its old news) the 2T5 which extends the range of the the current version 2T, the range iw now 5 kilometers, which is a guided missile via radio control. The current stats of the 2T are as follows SACLOS 4.4 kg tandem HEAT warhead 1,000 mm penetration versus RHA, improved capability against ERA. Weight 13.7 kg. Speed 120 m/s.

So some may ask is it worth upgrading these or would it be better to purchase more Bumbar or another ATGW?

But actually think this new system (2T5) is a pretty good system especially compared the original system. But i actually think that a mix of the two Bumbar and 2T5 is the way to go for Serbia, as the 2T5 has the advantage of range and cost on its side while the Bumbar has a range of only 1000m, but has the advantages of being more accurate, can be launched in confined spaces, and has a much lower minimum range than the 2T5. I remember reading that the AT-3 was the cheapest ATGW available, obviously the 2T5 would be more expensive than the normal version however i wouldn't expect it to much more expensive than the original. And if we take into account of the most recent types of warfare being experienced in the recent conflict zones around the world, neither of them has called for Sophisticated ATGW systems, just look at Syria for example AT-3 sagger, AT-4 Spigot, and AT-5 spandrel, have all been very useful, and not just destroying armour but buildings and enemy positions where the use of Sophisticated ATGW would be a waste of money in these situations.

Serbia also has the AT-4 Spigot and although i am surprised that they didn't choose this instead of the AT-3 Sagger for upgrading, I think that it came down to cost, like i said the AT-3 seems to be cheap to produce and giving it some simple but effective upgrades would still keep it cheap, where to upgrade the AT-4 might have cost more, and with Bumbar now in production i think it won't be long before they have an upgraded missile on this extending the range to the same as the AT-4 (2.5km) so therefore they will eventually have a two systems in their inventory, one with a high degree of accuracy being able to operate in any weather situations, and the other a cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles.

whats peoples views on the Serbian Malyutka-2 and 2T5???

below a pictures of both missiles

2T and 2F


2T5.

Malytka is mounted in field only on BVP-80, BOV-1 and Gazella-Gama helicopters.

Also it seems that Bumbar will be shelved, apparently they are having issues with stability of missile in flight and price tag is way too high for our armed forces. Also it has 600m range not 1000m, variant with 1000m range was proposed for development but it was never made. Reason was that it would add 2kg to the missile and it would go above weight limitations required by Serbian Army.

There also was word of Bumbar "3000" as they called it which was supposed to grow into vehicle carried 3000m range missile with same warhead however it never went further than words.

Serbian company Krušik obtained licence for AT-4 Spigot (allegedly) but never produced even a single unit ever, as war in 90s and financial issues made it impossible. There was also domestic development in same class called DRUG, which went fairly far away but then was stopped somewhere in the 90s due to financial reasons.

These modifications of Malytka are just ways to slightly improve badly outdated equipment we have without spending huge amounts of money for real decent systems, money which we do not have. Last year Serbian army spent i belive 12 million USD on procurement of new equipment. For that kind of money in terms of military equipment you can buy..well...nothing.

wow $12m that really is next to nothing, its a shame as i actually think for single small country Serbia comes up with some decent stuff but just doesn't have the cash to put it into full production or to buy it in good numbers, the Nora 52-B and Sora 122mm are good.

I did think the Bumbar was 600m but when i went onto manufacturer website it stated 1000m but like you said this must have been a different version.

i once saw a picture of a Serbian Mi-8 with AT-3 on it but i think the picture was taken at some sort of promo fair/show.

also do you know if Serbia ever upgraded any of its BTR-50 to BTR-50S??? which i kinda felt was quite a good upgrade for something so outdated but then i thought the armour of the vehicle was a bit of draw back, and the vehicle being pretty big would be an easy target. The only thing really the BTR-50 can be useful for now is either command, comms, ambulance, transport of ammo or some sort of engineer vehicle, but i would say ambulance would be best suited due its size which is ideal for stretchers and medical equipment, but obviously this would require some modifications to the hull, i believe there was a Lebanese version which was turned into medivac.

but anyway i actually think the 2T5 isn't all that bad and its good that they are making use of what they have. Its a real shame about the budget, as Serbian forces seem pretty professional and capable.    

Well this year they spent abit more, as they obtained two new helicopters and ordered some items from YUGOIMPORT but still its far, far below what would be required.

Yeah, that Mi-8 you saw is probably some Photoshop Frankenstein of Yugoimport, Photoshop company.

No, i am not aware of command BTRs ever being modernised or updated. Some of those were attached to AAA units that used 20mm cannons back in time i remember sitting in one in Novi Sad.

2T5 is okay if it ends up being used on vehicles, however if they try forcing it into infantry in AT squads that wont go well.

@d_taddei2
The Serbian army has been reduced to a level of a firefighter brigade, no more no less. Thousands of former members of the army are still waiting for justified salary compensation, living below the existence minimum. Active sf members living with wife and child in 1 room appartements because the wage is not enough for more. Know enough such cases in my circle of friends. That says everything about the Serbian army and its possibility to acquire new heavy caliber...its a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

Of course you deserve better... and the shame is on the politicians.

The NATO war crimes against Serbia prove it is about people... if you had the weapons of Saudi Arabia and the soldiers of Saudi Arabia they probably would have defeated you in two weeks.

They had to resort to all sorts of war crimes to get you to the table to talk in the end... promising Russia would be part of the solution and then reneging on that like the cowards they are.

Regarding the equipment... what they have done with the AT_3 is rather impressive, but the low flight speed would be a problem in combat... a target at 5km would take quite some time to get to at 120m/s... a target moving from cover to cover would be almost impossible to engage near max range simply because the window of opportunity would be too short.

The Soviets replaced the AT-3 with a combination of AT-4 and AT-7 and later AT-13, with medium range targets being dealt with using AT-5 and later Kornet.

The AT-13 is cheap and simple and has excellent penetration and is totally man portable... a three man team can carry the launcher with bipod and a missile plus two other men each with two missiles each for a pack weight of about 25kgs per man where the missiles are about 13kgs each and the launcher is about the same.

GarryB wrote:

a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

Of course you deserve better... and the shame is on the politicians.

The NATO war crimes against Serbia prove it is about people... if you had the weapons of Saudi Arabia and the soldiers of Saudi Arabia they probably would have defeated you in two weeks.

They had to resort to all sorts of war crimes to get you to the table to talk in the end... promising Russia would be part of the solution and then reneging on that like the cowards they are.

Regarding the equipment... what they have done with the AT_3 is rather impressive, but the low flight speed would be a problem in combat... a target at 5km would take quite some time to get to at 120m/s... a target moving from cover to cover would be almost impossible to engage near max range simply because the window of opportunity would be too short.

The Soviets replaced the AT-3 with a combination of AT-4 and AT-7 and later AT-13, with medium range targets being dealt with using AT-5 and later Kornet.

The AT-13 is cheap and simple and has excellent penetration and is totally man portable... a three man team can carry the launcher with bipod and a missile plus two other men each with two missiles each for a pack weight of about 25kgs per man where the missiles are about 13kgs each and the launcher is about the same.

i agree very impressive for such an old system, but like i said these older systems have proven to be valuable in Syria, and like i also said the 2T5 is cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles. As like you said moving vehicles would have to be going very slow in order to hit as trying to hit a normal moving vehicle would be very hard, and would be better to use more hi tech systems for this, which makes perfect sense why waste an expensive missile on a building, enemy position or static vehicle when a cheaper one will do the same effect

GarryB wrote:

a shame but we do not seem to deserve anything better...

Of course you deserve better... and the shame is on the politicians.

The NATO war crimes against Serbia prove it is about people... if you had the weapons of Saudi Arabia and the soldiers of Saudi Arabia they probably would have defeated you in two weeks.

They had to resort to all sorts of war crimes to get you to the table to talk in the end... promising Russia would be part of the solution and then reneging on that like the cowards they are.

Regarding the equipment... what they have done with the AT_3 is rather impressive, but the low flight speed would be a problem in combat... a target at 5km would take quite some time to get to at 120m/s... a target moving from cover to cover would be almost impossible to engage near max range simply because the window of opportunity would be too short.

The Soviets replaced the AT-3 with a combination of AT-4 and AT-7 and later AT-13, with medium range targets being dealt with using AT-5 and later Kornet.

The AT-13 is cheap and simple and has excellent penetration and is totally man portable... a three man team can carry the launcher with bipod and a missile plus two other men each with two missiles each for a pack weight of about 25kgs per man where the missiles are about 13kgs each and the launcher is about the same.

Speed is increased dramatically if we belive claims by VTI, they claim current average speed of this new "big" Malytka is between 180 and 200 m/s. However in Serbian military forum circles, some people that worked for decades in missile development have certain...doubts about whole thing but we shall see.

200m/s with the same old guidance? we cursed enough with the classic maljutka...
I still not belive that reliable hits are possible on 5km with the new rocket (same guidance) on targets 1,5 x 2m. Perhaps under perfectly test conditions (Perfect sight, weather, brightness). Operating the old one was already a challenge. That will confirm each who have ever guide this system. Updating maljutkas is in my opinion the wrong way.

cheesfactory wrote:200m/s with the same old guidance? we cursed enough with the classic maljutka...
I still not belive that reliable hits are possible on 5km with the new rocket (same guidance) on targets 1,5 x 2m. Perhaps under perfectly test conditions (Perfect sight, weather, brightness). Operating the old one was already a challenge. That will confirm each who have ever guide this system. Updating maljutkas is in my opinion the wrong way.

It does not use same "wire" guidance previous types used, its using radio-command guidance.

i agree very impressive for such an old system, but like i said these older systems have proven to be valuable in Syria, and like i also said the 2T5 is cheap effective system with a decent range ideal for destroying buildings, bunkers, positions, and static armoured vehicles. As like you said moving vehicles would have to be going very slow in order to hit as trying to hit a normal moving vehicle would be very hard, and would be better to use more hi tech systems for this, which makes perfect sense why waste an expensive missile on a building, enemy position or static vehicle when a cheaper one will do the same effect

The real question however is... is it actually cheaper?

Of course it is cheaper to use already made stockpiled missiles, but they have all the faults and limitations of the older generation missiles. If you then perform a few upgrades then you start spending money and you need to ask yourself would that extra money be better spend upgrading to a whole new system that is better in many ways.

For instance the removing of the wire guidance means a speed increase from 120m/s to say 200m/s which is significant but not amazing.

Of course weapons designed from the outset to use radio command guidance often have speeds of twice this at up to 450m/s like SHTURM or 400m/s like ATAKA... and greatly increased range, but also increased weight to the 40kg weight range.

If the requirement is light weight then there is a limitation you need to work around.

Of course I am a huge fan of the Metis-M1... it would be interesting to take this system and make a hybrid with the AT-3.

the Metis has the advantage of modern guidance (SACLOS) and light weight of the launcher and missile. This upgraded Sagger seems to have radically improved range and a modest increase in speed with the change to radio command guidance... I wonder if the same changes applied to the Metis would lead to a better performing missile... especially if the warhead could be replaced with a HE FRAG weapon for the sundry targets these systems tend to be used against.

It does not use same "wire" guidance previous types used, its using radio-command guidance.

With the improved range I would hope SACLOS at least would make it easier to operate... especially with decent magnified optics.

I should add that so many westerners I speak to have never heard of the AT-7 and really knew little about it despite it being very widely deployed as a replacement for the AT-3.

I remember during the 1980s buying all sorts of military magazines that never mentioned the system even though it entered service in 1979...

it had a flight speed of 220m/s with wire guidance... so 200m/s for upgrade Saggers should be practical...