User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 1:56:44 PM EDT
Interesting thought process.
 Are Modern Militaries overly Reliant on Anti-tank weapons? | ADDICTED TO JAVELIN & NLAW |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:00:35 PM EDT
[#1]
As opposed to what? Letting tanks run over you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:01:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Lol. Some armies seem to be overly reliant on tanks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:02:31 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As opposed to what? Letting tanks run over you?  You stole my post! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:06:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As opposed to what? Letting tanks run over you? AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. Relying on just one system leaves you open to a tech breakthrough rendering you obsolete (e.g., relying only on tanks) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:07:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:09:14 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. Relying on just one system leaves you open to a tech breakthrough rendering you obsolete (e.g., relying only on tanks) Mines present other problems, and helicopters and other (good) tanks ain't cheap |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:10:04 PM EDT
[#7]
FPNI.
If there's a tank there ought to be an anti-tank weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:11:14 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? I would also add that sometime there's not a blue tank around when you really need one. It's sorta like a gun in that way. Best have your own and not rely on another |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:12:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Or you fall into the mineshaft gap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:16:29 PM EDT
[#10]
If your tanks are fighting the other side's tanks, you've already fucked up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:19:21 PM EDT
[#11]
Seems to be working well for the Ukrainians
sooo noooo |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:20:19 PM EDT
[#12]
LoL, someone asked “as opposed to what?” and I listed some alternatives.
There *are* other ways to stop tanks. Sure, they have drawbacks and some are hideously expensive. That wasn’t the question being asked in that post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:20:48 PM EDT
[#13]
Helicopters are just flying ATGM platforms for purposes of this, along with light armor and recon sorts of vehicles
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:21:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? An ATGM can’t replace a tank. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:22:01 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to be working well for the Ukrainians sooo noooo It worked decently in defense. It’s shit in offense compared to your own armor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:26:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It worked decently in defense. It’s shit in offense compared to your own armor. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Seems to be working well for the Ukrainians sooo noooo It worked decently in defense. It’s shit in offense compared to your own armor. Yup, the current Ukraine war is a specific set of circumstances (combined with some real incompetence by the Russians)… |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:27:54 PM EDT
[#17]
It is harder to use them well with a properly set up attack. If the attacker has good intel on positions and or probable positions then Air strikes, artillery, rockets should take out a lot of firing points. Then roll in AFV's and Tanks smoke to obscure the advance.
We only had Dragons, LAW and TOW at the time also. Wire guided, except the LAW, you had to keep the target in the sight until impact. Sucks to be you firing the Dragon or TOW. The TOW was mounted on wheels or tracks for the most part so you might get distance before incoming gets you |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:31:01 PM EDT
[#18]
They're cheaper than tanks, especially when you factor in maintenance, and personnel costs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:32:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup, the current Ukraine war is a specific set of circumstances (combined with some real incompetence by the Russians)… Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Seems to be working well for the Ukrainians sooo noooo It worked decently in defense. It’s shit in offense compared to your own armor. Yup, the current Ukraine war is a specific set of circumstances (combined with some real incompetence by the Russians)… It’s going to be a long fight to get people to learn the right lessons from this war. Always is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:33:36 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They're cheaper than tanks, especially when you factor in maintenance, and personnel costs. That’s true, but they don’t do tank things either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:35:00 PM EDT
[#21]
I don't know anything about it but I always thought tanks would do better on defense. They are big and heavy and need a lot of fuel not too far away. Seems like invaders always had trouble crossing long distances with them in the first string.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:40:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Yes leave all your ATGMs at the armory, please.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:43:33 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As opposed to what? Letting tanks run over you? Doesn’t seem like a good choice 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:47:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Has the US ever fielded an AT hand grenade? Apparently no.
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade In the late 1970s, the U.S. Army was worried about the lack of emergency anti-tank weapons for issue to its rear area units, to counter isolated enemy armored vehicles infiltrating or being air dropped. When the US Army asked for ideas, engineers at U.S. Army laboratories suggested the reverse-engineered and additional safety improvements of the East German AZ-58-K-100 HEAT anti-tank grenade that had been clandestinely obtained. This concept was called "HAG" for "High-explosive Antiarmor Grenade". While the civilian engineers working for the US Army thought it was a great idea, it was rejected out of hand by almost all senior US Army officers with field experience, who thought it would be more dangerous to the troops who used them than the enemy. The idea was quietly shelved by 1985.[22] This decision left many rear-area U.S. units with no heavier "anti-tank weapon" than the M2 heavy machine gun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:49:20 PM EDT
[#25]
Short answer seems like "no".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:51:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know anything about it but I always thought tanks would do better on defense. They are big and heavy and need a lot of fuel not too far away. Seems like invaders always had trouble crossing long distances with them in the first string. Advances suck in general but advancing is harder without tanks than defending is without tanks. Advancing requires breaking strongpoints the defenders emplace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:53:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know anything about it but I always thought tanks would do better on defense. They are big and heavy and need a lot of fuel not too far away. Seems like invaders always had trouble crossing long distances with them in the first string. My understanding is that they are wasted on defense. If you need a big cannon to defend a particular spot you can build a concrete firing point and park a howitzer in it for cheap. The thing that makes a tank useful is that the big cannon is mobile and can bring the pain to bad guys where they’re at. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:54:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Tanks are exceptionally useful in the defense. But less critical than in the offense. This is why US infantry formations use missile armed trucks or strykers for self defense but have or are procuring a cannon for attacking.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:56:02 PM EDT
[#29]
Insurgents do pretty good with them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 2:58:32 PM EDT
[#30]
Considering that infantry is virtually helpless against modern armored vehicles (not just tanks), it seems like deploying as many man portable anti armor weapons as possible is a smart thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:07:38 PM EDT
[#31]
In sense that ATGMs have become the default weapon for almost every target out in view of the shooter, but that has more to do with its only guided weapon they have and guided weapons are so much more effective than unguided.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:20:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. ATGM's are relatively cheap, easy to proliferate and effective, thats why they are used. I mean how many javelins can you buy for the cost of an attack helo squadron, or a tank company? Did you watch the video? One of the concerns he raised is with modern atgms it's not just a warhead in a tube. There are other considerations at play. Supply chain on high tech components as an example. Or the batteries to run the things. Mentions a report of dudes hooking up motorcycle batteries to get shit to work. His point is diversification and simplicity in the thought process at scale. And as was mentioned above technical changes that make your new wiz bang thing obsolete like APS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:21:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FPNI. If there's a tank there ought to be an anti-tank weapon. That wasn't the point of the video and he never said there should not be an anti tank weapon. There should be an anti "fill in the blank" weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:25:43 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Mines present other problems, and helicopters and other (good) tanks ain't cheap Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: AT mines, attack helos, your own tanks, etc. Relying on just one system leaves you open to a tech breakthrough rendering you obsolete (e.g., relying only on tanks) Mines present other problems, and helicopters and other (good) tanks ain't cheap |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:26:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Has the US ever fielded an AT hand grenade? Apparently no. https://i.ibb.co/YPFLjj6/AE3-C355-A-0-A35-4-CDE-BCD0-8-AB18-E6-F528-E.webp https://i.ibb.co/47VHyBX/3652-A326-F41-F-411-E-82-CA-FF0-D6-D775567.webp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade In the late 1970s, the U.S. Army was worried about the lack of emergency anti-tank weapons for issue to its rear area units, to counter isolated enemy armored vehicles infiltrating or being air dropped. When the US Army asked for ideas, engineers at U.S. Army laboratories suggested the reverse-engineered and additional safety improvements of the East German AZ-58-K-100 HEAT anti-tank grenade that had been clandestinely obtained. This concept was called "HAG" for "High-explosive Antiarmor Grenade". While the civilian engineers working for the US Army thought it was a great idea, it was rejected out of hand by almost all senior US Army officers with field experience, who thought it would be more dangerous to the troops who used them than the enemy. The idea was quietly shelved by 1985.[22] This decision left many rear-area U.S. units with no heavier "anti-tank weapon" than the M2 heavy machine gun. I think I've seen them in the Ukraine conflict as well. Not sure how they'd do against a tank, but they went through MRAPs and 1151s without a thought. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:36:31 PM EDT
[#36]
Portable high powered laser systems mounted on tanks will make ATGM’s weaker.
Everything has a strength/weakness. But building any force without multiple secondary backups is foolish. How well would we do without air superiority? How long has it been since our troops had no air cover? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:37:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Lightweight composite roof armor to stop them is available but it needs to actually be bought for it to work…
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 3:50:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: RKG-3s are pretty nasty. We got lucky because the insurgent TTPs with them fucking sucked. We lost a guy on a subordinate team to one, and another guy almost lost his leg. I think I've seen them in the Ukraine conflict as well. Not sure how they'd do against a tank, but they went through MRAPs and 1151s without a thought. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Has the US ever fielded an AT hand grenade? Apparently no. https://i.ibb.co/YPFLjj6/AE3-C355-A-0-A35-4-CDE-BCD0-8-AB18-E6-F528-E.webp https://i.ibb.co/47VHyBX/3652-A326-F41-F-411-E-82-CA-FF0-D6-D775567.webp https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_grenade In the late 1970s, the U.S. Army was worried about the lack of emergency anti-tank weapons for issue to its rear area units, to counter isolated enemy armored vehicles infiltrating or being air dropped. When the US Army asked for ideas, engineers at U.S. Army laboratories suggested the reverse-engineered and additional safety improvements of the East German AZ-58-K-100 HEAT anti-tank grenade that had been clandestinely obtained. This concept was called "HAG" for "High-explosive Antiarmor Grenade". While the civilian engineers working for the US Army thought it was a great idea, it was rejected out of hand by almost all senior US Army officers with field experience, who thought it would be more dangerous to the troops who used them than the enemy. The idea was quietly shelved by 1985.[22] This decision left many rear-area U.S. units with no heavier "anti-tank weapon" than the M2 heavy machine gun. I think I've seen them in the Ukraine conflict as well. Not sure how they'd do against a tank, but they went through MRAPs and 1151s without a thought. The Ukes have been dropping AT grenades on Russian AFVs and Tanks to good effect from small drones using homemade 3D printed release racks and fins. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:19:08 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lightweight composite roof armor to stop them is available but it needs to actually be bought for it to work… In the ongoing "warhead vs. armor" race, armor historically holds the advantage for very brief stints. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:24:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In the ongoing "warhead vs. armor" race, armor historically holds the advantage for very brief stints. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Lightweight composite roof armor to stop them is available but it needs to actually be bought for it to work… In the ongoing "warhead vs. armor" race, armor historically holds the advantage for very brief stints. Agree, but the command economy to distribute this sort of hand grenade throughout the third world no longer exists, so the warheads found in shitholes are already there, and aren’t going to grow in size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:32:08 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I would also add that sometime there's not a blue tank around when you really need one. It's sorta like a gun in that way. Best have your own and not rely on another Yup. And pretty much every squad can have some sort of ATGM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:32:52 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: An ATGM can’t replace a tank. Agreed, they both have their place, which is why they are both used. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:34:58 PM EDT
[#43]
Not my field (never been military), but how effective are AT weapons against 'hard points' or other non-tank targets?
The other side is behind a concrete wall and shooting at you (several together)? Machine gun emplacement? Command of some kind is visible within range of the AT weapon? I'd assume they do well against thin skinned stuff (maybe I'm wrong) like technicals, troop transport, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:35:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did you watch the video? One of the concerns he raised is with modern atgms it's not just a warhead in a tube. There are other considerations at play. Supply chain on high tech components as an example. Or the batteries to run the things. Mentions a report of dudes hooking up motorcycle batteries to get shit to work. His point is diversification and simplicity in the thought process at scale. And as was mentioned above technical changes that make your new wiz bang thing obsolete like APS. Doesn't seem like APS is working out real well in Ukraine. Maybe a western system would be better though. And really most armies have a mix of weapon systems to do different things. So I'm not really sure the point of the video most of his points were pretty dumb. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:37:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not my field (never been military), but how effective are AT weapons against 'hard points' or other non-tank targets? The other side is behind a concrete wall and shooting at you (several together)? Machine gun emplacement? Command of some kind is visible within range of the AT weapon? I'd assume they do well against thin skinned stuff (maybe I'm wrong) like technicals, troop transport, etc. They have been used against all sorts of the targets you mention historically. In the Falkland's the premier anti-sniper weapon was the milan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 4:41:20 PM EDT
[#46]
I can see his point with regards to Ukraine. I think we're in a different position than a lot of other countries though. Nothing wrong with having a bunch of Carl Gustaf though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 5:04:13 PM EDT
[#47]
No.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 5:08:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In sense that ATGMs have become the default weapon for almost every target out in view of the shooter, but that has more to do with its only guided weapon they have and guided weapons are so much more effective than unguided. I remember the first time I saw a TOW sandbagged into a position on a FOB in Astan. It was exceptionally effective, in that the optics/sensor were able to identify human targets at extended ranges and then the gunner could engage them with precision. It must have worked because they had a pile of empties and kill marks on the side of the bunker. Had to be kinda spendy, but not compared to calling in an aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 7:09:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't seem like APS is working out real well in Ukraine. Maybe a western system would be better though. And really most armies have a mix of weapon systems to do different things. So I'm not really sure the point of the video most of his points were pretty dumb. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Did you watch the video? One of the concerns he raised is with modern atgms it's not just a warhead in a tube. There are other considerations at play. Supply chain on high tech components as an example. Or the batteries to run the things. Mentions a report of dudes hooking up motorcycle batteries to get shit to work. His point is diversification and simplicity in the thought process at scale. And as was mentioned above technical changes that make your new wiz bang thing obsolete like APS. Doesn't seem like APS is working out real well in Ukraine. Maybe a western system would be better though. And really most armies have a mix of weapon systems to do different things. So I'm not really sure the point of the video most of his points were pretty dumb. They aren’t working real well because neither side is employing modern APS in quantity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2022 7:18:51 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They aren’t working real well because neither side is employing modern APS in quantity. I was about to say, is anyone over there using western APS? or just Russian stuff |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
