French ERYX antitank missile




 
--
 
June 8th, 2005  
jackehammond
 

Topic: French ERYX antitank missile


Folks,

The Eryx is what the French Army considers a true LAW (ie light antitank weapon) as it can engage a modern MBT from any angle. They consider other antiarmor rockets and rifle grenades as assalt weapons.

The Eryx is a 600 meter range wire guided missile. It has a soft launch ability so it can be launched from inside buildings. It also has a small shape charge warhead on the front of the missile to defeat reactive armor tiles. It uses a unique way of getting the stand off needed for its shape charge warhead by placing the rocket motor and exhaust in front of the main warhead.

The ERYX is in use with the French Army, Norway, Canada and some unnamed nations. The Canadian Land Forces are not that happy with it according to a Canadian officer I know.

Finally, click the below link to see several photos I got from the French manufacture when I was doing an article on antitank missiles.

Jack E. Hammond

http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/hybena.../ph//my_photos
June 8th, 2005  
Whispering Death
 
 
I get the anti-tank part but that thing sure as hell doesn't look LIGHT.
June 8th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
probebly light as in protable by man. Thats usually how the light in light anti tank weapon is defined. It can be fired by a man holding it. BILL 2 on the other hand is fired from a platform, and its not called Light anti tank weapon
--
June 8th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whispering Death
I get the anti-tank part but that thing sure as h**l doesn't look LIGHT.
Dear Member,

You will get no arguement from me. Before the Erxy came into service they had an interim antitank weapon called the APILAS. It was a one shot rocket launcher that fired a 112mm rocket that had such a powerful blast that it came equipped with a face shield. Of all the weapons that the US Army test in the 1980s as ordered by Congress to replace the M72 LAW it was the only one that claimed it could defeat the T-72 frontally. And if you think the AT-4/MN136 is heavy compared to the M72 it replaced the APILAS was 1/3 more in weight.

Finally, I was sent a video of the Eryx in operation. I don't know if you ever saw a DRAGON being fired. Most people comment on how slow it is to other missiles. The Eryx in flight is slower than the DRAGON!

Jack E. Hammond

PS> I will look through my files. If I can find the APILAS folder I will post some to that folder with the Eryx for comparison. I mean you have to see the French soldier preparing to fire the APILAS to believe it. I was hired to write an article on the APILAS for the Capitol Marines magazine and I felt like saying if the USMC adopt the APILAS they might as well issue a pack mule to each Marine to carry them. But as I said, I was being paid to write a public relations article.
June 8th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
probebly light as in protable by man. Thats usually how the light in light anti tank weapon is defined. It can be fired by a man holding it. BILL 2 on the other hand is fired from a platform, and its not called Light anti tank weapon
Dear Member,

The BILL is a dang good medium antitank weapon. I did the first US article on it and one of my first articles for Popular Mechanics was on the BILL. You have to give the engineers from Bofors credit for coming up with that unique system for killing a tank even if it is hidden below a ridge line with only the top of the turret showing. If the US had chosen an interim weapon for the DRAGON I would have picked the BILL. But the US Army (ie the Marines big time) would have chosen the MILAN. Luckly the US never had to find out about the DRAGON in combat against modern MBTs. The Javelin is in service now and it gives an over kill ability -- it basically gives an infantry force the same ability as the TOW almost.

Jack E. Hammond
June 8th, 2005  
AlexKall
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
probebly light as in protable by man. Thats usually how the light in light anti tank weapon is defined. It can be fired by a man holding it. BILL 2 on the other hand is fired from a platform, and its not called Light anti tank weapon
Dear Member,

The BILL is a dang good medium antitank weapon. I did the first US article on it and one of my first articles for Popular Mechanics was on the BILL. You have to give the engineers from Bofors credit for coming up with that unique system for killing a tank even if it is hidden below a ridge line with only the top of the turret showing. If the US had chosen an interim weapon for the DRAGON I would have picked the BILL. But the US Army (ie the Marines big time) would have chosen the MILAN. Luckly the US never had to find out about the DRAGON in combat against modern MBTs. The Javelin is in service now and it gives an over kill ability -- it basically gives an infantry force the same ability as the TOW almost.

Jack E. Hammond
Thank you, great to hear first hand thoughts on it!

This was the first version right? not version 2? Wonder how V2 holds up to its dad, should be better but you never know

Whats the dirreckt difference between BILL 2 and Javelin?
June 8th, 2005  
Armyjaeger
 
 
I've seen plenty of those APILAS's being fired, not the live ones but the exercise versions of it, dunno if there's much difference. When it comes to noice level the APILAS is absolutely horrible and yeah the blast is freaking huge. Effective range is greatly limited but its made up in raw firepower. When I was in army our APILAS gunners were told it defeats modern battle tanks from its effective range, its just that nobody mentioned what battle tanks
June 8th, 2005  
jackehammond
 

Topic: The Bill vs the Javelin


Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexKall
Thank you, great to hear first hand thoughts on it!

This was the first version right? not version 2? Wonder how V2 holds up to its dad, should be better but you never know

Whats the dirreckt difference between BILL 2 and Javelin?
Dear Alex,

The only difference between the Bill and Bill 2 is a small warhead in the front of the nose that explodes mil-seconds before the main warhead to defeat reactive armor tiles. Like the Bill main warhead it is canted downwards at a 60 degree angle.

The Bill is a lot like the TOW in operation. It is a SACLOS (ie all the operator does is keep the cross hairs on the target and it will impact the target -- ie or in the Bills case fly a meter above the aim point). The Javelin is a 3rd generation antiarmor missile and is a true fire and forget. It uses type of a IR warhead that homes in on a IR photo of the tank and uses a direct top attack where it dives on the top of the target. Also the Bill has a range of 2000 meters and there are reports that Javelin has a range in excess of 3000 meters. In addition the Bill requires a ground tripod while the Javelin is fired from the operators shoulder (ie it is still a heavy load for an operators shoulder though).

Jack E. Hammond
June 8th, 2005  
jackehammond
 

Topic: The APILAS and the GILL/SPIKE


Quote:
Originally Posted by Armyjaeger
I've seen plenty of those APILAS's being fired, not the live ones but the exercise versions of it, dunno if there's much difference. When it comes to noice level the APILAS is absolutely horrible and yeah the blast is freaking huge. Effective range is greatly limited but its made up in raw firepower. When I was in army our APILAS gunners were told it defeats modern battle tanks from its effective range, its just that nobody mentioned what battle tanks
Dear Member,

Unless you fired the practice version which uses a 9mm round for cheap training the other training round is similar to the combat APILAS except for no HEAT warhead.

Also, Finland just took delivery of an Israeli antitank weapon system the GILL/SPIKE which by all reports is very good. It is in the similar catagory as the US Javelin only cheaper and lighter. It has one advantage in that one version can uses an optical fiber cable back to the launcher unit so the gunner can fine tune the aim point or even fire the missile over a ridge and then acquire the target and lock on. The US Army considered this system for the missile that replaced the DRAGON (ie the Javelin) that was designed by Hughes Missile, but decided against it wanting a true fire and forget.

Jack E. Hammond'


Dear Alex,

I don't know if this image will show, but here is a photo of the SPIKE 2.5 that Finland ordered. It has both a fire and forget mode and a fire and update mode using a fiber optic cable connection. Range is 2.5km.

Jack E. Hammond

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/41c3c...Tv1pCBLuQVDd2w
June 9th, 2005  
Redleg
 
 

Topic: Re: French ERYX antitank missile


Quote:
Originally Posted by jackehammond
The ERYX is in use with the French Army, Norway, Canada and some unnamed nations. The Canadian Land Forces are not that happy with it according to a Canadian officer I know.
Hmm.
I'm afraid that you may get the same answer from a few Norwegian officers as well..

ERYX is designed for urban warfare, and it can even be fired from inside a building (needs 2meter space behind it), but the wire guidance system doesn't work too well in Norwegian terrain..
Too many trees and bushes that the wires can (and will) get caught in...
The range of max 600m is not too good either, so we are now looking for new medium range AT alternatives.