SAA getting hammered

Isos wrote:From 2013, T-72 suviving shots of rpg. Even without add-on armor it is still very well protected from the front. It would have been a very dangerous foe in the big steps of europe during cold war.
.....
OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
storm333 wrote:OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
Based on the topography, the atgm attack on infantry units seemed to be in the same area
Concentrate forces on a modern battlefield, especially without proper cover, expect them to be, detected and destroyed by long range weapons. This scenario keeps getting repeated over and over again with the SAA. I would have thought by now their tactics would have adapted to mitigate this attack by the terrorist.
So questions to those who have faced such a threat:
From a technical view point the missile in the above video travels at 240ms slower than the speed of sound in air of 340ms, for 14s. Wouldn't sound of atgm firing be audible and thus detected?
Additionally could a sentry detect visually the flare and smoke trails of the missile?
What other tactics could be employed for defeating the ATGM threat to infantry?
OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
storm333 wrote:OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
Based on the topography, the atgm attack on infantry units seemed to be in the same area
Concentrate forces on a modern battlefield, especially without proper cover, expect them to be, detected and destroyed by long range weapons. This scenario keeps getting repeated over and over again with the SAA. I would have thought by now their tactics would have adapted to mitigate this attack by the terrorist.
So questions to those who have faced such a threat:
From a technical view point the missile in the above video travels at 240ms slower than the speed of sound in air of 340ms, for 14s. Wouldn't sound of atgm firing be audible and thus detected?
Additionally could a sentry detect visually the flare and smoke trails of the missile?
What other tactics could be employed for defeating the ATGM threat to infantry?
Airbornewolf wrote:storm333 wrote:OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
Based on the topography, the atgm attack on infantry units seemed to be in the same area
Concentrate forces on a modern battlefield, especially without proper cover, expect them to be, detected and destroyed by long range weapons. This scenario keeps getting repeated over and over again with the SAA. I would have thought by now their tactics would have adapted to mitigate this attack by the terrorist.
So questions to those who have faced such a threat:
From a technical view point the missile in the above video travels at 240ms slower than the speed of sound in air of 340ms, for 14s. Wouldn't sound of atgm firing be audible and thus detected?
Additionally could a sentry detect visually the flare and smoke trails of the missile?
What other tactics could be employed for defeating the ATGM threat to infantry?
as a former NATO Soldier familiar with the TOW-fammily of ATGM's myself:
No, ATGM's are not audible enough to be detected by the receiving party. with the Launch most of the sound is directed away from the enemy with the rocket engine igniting backwards. they also do not see the rocket's engine as it's in-flight. at best they see the launch flame exhaust in some cases if they happen to look in the right direction with optics. but outside of that for a soldier/sentry its like trying to spot something coming straight at you in an environment where you try to keep an 360 degree situational awareness. chances you see it flying at you are low.
the Tow or any ATGM in general is an very poor weapon to use against infantry. because of its shaped-charge warhead it focuses all its destructive energy into an narrow focused forward attack.
im sure most know, but for those that do not a shaped-charge attack it is in layman's therms basically an copper-cone surrounded with explosives that when ignited results in an extremely hot stream of molten metal that is forced straight at the armor it's impacting.
So you could stand very close to an ATGM strike, but unless you take the missile to your chest odds are good you survive. there is little explosive force going outwards and no shrapnell from the missile itself. as its missile design is not intended to be anti-infantry, but anti-armor.
its more of an waste to use ATGM's on infantry, as they have almost zero effect. its an expensive waste of ordnance and you have a big chance of giving away your position after the enemy figures out its probable launch location after impact. it's command wire's connecting the missile to the launch unit do not incinerate upon impact. even during exercises they had a habit to keep hanging in fences and wash lines. giving a nice trail for the enemy to take a rough guess where it came from.
I was glad we got rid of TOW's at the time and went over to the Panzerfaust-3. it's practical, can be fired from indoors, defeats most armour, you can set its warhead to either Anti-infantry or Anti-Tank and can shoot an low-flying helicopter out of the sky if you want with its Dynarange computer.
but do not even get me started about the GILL we got as an medium to long range AT weapon in return. that's just over-hyped, over-priced Israeli garbage that can't even distinguish an shipping container from the desert surrounding it.
KomissarBojanchev wrote:So this where the TOW menace began. I hope Trump won't make such deals.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/12/why-is-saudi-arabia-buying-15000-u-s-anti-tank-missiles-for-a-war-it-will-never-fight/
Can good estimates be made on what fraction of moderate owned ATGM stockpiles are being destroyed by russian airstrikes? Also I saw a chart in 2016 that showed the steady decrease of TOW launches by rebels. Why are there still so much launches in 2017?
OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
ult wrote:OminousSpudd wrote:Beardies claiming a shot on T-90 with TOW in Hama, but looks like T-72 to me...
Either way, survives nicely.
It is T-62M. It is obvious. I understand that stupid jihadists have 3 years of school on average, and trying to exaggerate their wins. But the rest of the people who spread those fake claims are just the worst. Worse than the jihadists. Fucking morons giving a T-90 a bad name.
Odin of Ossetia wrote:
There is or was a video on Youtube of four Alawite regime troops walking on a road getting hit with such a missile fired by the FSA; three of them do not get up, while one gets up but is clearly seriously wounded (he does not even bother to check on the other three if they are still alive or not and they are right beside him).
There is or was a video on Youtube of four Alawite regime troops walking on a road getting hit with such a missile fired by the FSA; three of them do not get up, while one gets up but is clearly seriously wounded (he does not even bother to check on the other three if they are still alive or not and they are right beside him).
|
|