Infantry Anti-tank Weapons - Page 3




View Poll Results :Most effective infantry anti-tank weapon?
Grenade 0 0%
Satchel charge 1 4.76%
Bazooka 0 0%
RPG 3 14.29%
LAW 8 38.10%
Dragon 9 42.86%
Voters: 21. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
June 15th, 2005  
hicks
 
LOSAT
June 16th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I apologize for the lack of specifics and ommission of some items. Mea culpa. A couple items were not included because I share the opinion that anti-tank mines are a defensive weapon that infantry cannot employ in the heat of battle, it takes prepwork. Also I was of the impression that a TOW missle could not be fired unless mounted on a vehicle and not by infantry soldiers sans support vehicles. Am I wrong?
As for ommitting the Javelin, Carl Gustav et al my apologies to all those who were affronted by my ignorance.
June 16th, 2005  
SHERMAN
 
 
No one was offended. Just trying to make this a more effective disucussion.

The TOW can and is used as an infantry ATGM.
--
June 16th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AussieNick
I agree with you 100%. The Aussie SAS used them devestatingly in the first days of the second gulf war against an Iraqi army tank battalion... bearing in mind these are 4 man patrols on foot or land rover, they absolutley decimated the Iraqi armour with them, and the above armour explosion is a fantastic way of defeating modern (even reactive or caged) armour.
Actually, the Javelin has a far greater range than 2500 meters. They have a model coming out which will drastically increase the range to almost that of a TOW. Also, are you sure that the SAS was in North Iraq when that Iraqi battalion was taken on by Javelins. I talked to a Green Beret Special Forces officer who returned from Iraq who was with the Kurds and he never mentioned that fact. I thought they were all in southern Iraq?


Quote:
Originally Posted by SHERMAN
No one was offended. Just trying to make this a more effective disucussion.

The TOW can and is used as an infantry ATGM.

In a practical sense no the TOW can not be used as an infantry weapon. It does have a tripod moun so it can be used in dug in positions, but it was never intended to be used as an infantry weapon where it is carried around the battlefield. Remember the TOW was orginally developed to replace the 106mm recoiless rifle.

Today, ground antitank weapons come in three catagories:

* LAW (Light antiarmor weapons) like the rifle grenades, the M72, APILAS, RPG-7, B-300, APILAS, STRIM (an unknown French weapon but one which Israel and Russia and others have copied the basic design) or even the larger Erxy and SRAW. Most (but not all) are one man disposable weapons and are unguided. With a few exceptions non can engage a modern MBT from any angle. They are also for the most part short range weapons limited to no more than 300 meters and against a moving target 150 meters. Most armies today use them only to engage light armored vehicles and for so called bunker busting missions.

* MAW (Medium Antiarmor Weapon) these are weapons like the DRAGON, MILAN, SAGGER (the most widely used one in the world) JAVELIN, SPIKE/GILL, BILL, etc. MAWs require a crew of at least two soldiers and are guided weapons. They can also be vehicle mounted. With a few exceptions MAWs have a range of 2000 meters. In the past they were designed to engage modern MBTs from any angle. But that slipped with the introduction of Modern MBTs like the T-72 , Abrams, Merkeva, etc. But now with warhead improvements many MAWs can now engage modern MBTs from any angle.

* HAWs (Heavey Antiarmor Weapons) these are weapons like the TOW , SWINGFIRE, HOT, LOSAT, etc. While any of these weapons can be used from a ground mount they are almost always mounted on a vehicle. Range is between 4000 meters and beyond. They are the real tank killers that travel with the Infantry. With few exception they can easily kill a MBT. Most now come in versions with some kind of top attack or overfly attack ability.

Finally, I saw some photos of China's new Red Arrow 3. It looks an "awful lot like the Israeli MAPATS. And since the MAPATS is an unlicensed reverse engineered version of the Hughes Missiles TOW fitted with laser beam riding, don't you think Israelis IMI ought to pay Hughes Missiles some royalities? =GRIN=

Attention: The member who posted the poll

Dear Member,

What do you mean by bazooka? Do you mean the WW2 2.36 inch rocket launcher or the Korean War 3.5 inch rocket launcher? Both were called bazooka.

Also, the French developed a replacement for the 3.5 inch rocket launcher called the STRIM (ie a very good weapon). Is it a bazooka?

Are bazookas limited to only rocket launchers or do they also include recoiless weapons like the 84mm Swedish Carl Gustav?

Finally, Israel has developed a rocket launcher, the B-300, that while the launch unit is non-disposable it requires only one man to operate is it considered a bazooka?

Jack E. Hammond

Mod Edit: Please do not make back to back posts, espcially not tripple ones....Read the whole thread and than respond in one post.
June 17th, 2005  
DTop
 
 
The TOW has always been assigned to the infantry. Whether it is ground mounted or vehicle mounted TOW units are most definitely, but not exclusively of course, used as an infantry weapon. Hence the 11H MOS designation.
I was a 106mm Recoilless rifle PSG as the TOW replaced it. In an infantry BN, the TOW platoon was part of a Combat Support Company. Later there were entire companies of TOWs that were part of those same Inf. BNs. I became 1SG of just such a company. My TOW crews were detached and assigned to rifle companies. There were many times when the TOW crews were required to dismount the TOWs and hump them right alongside the 11Bs.
June 17th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Thanks Dtop, that was some new info never heard before.

Jack, when I think bazooka I am referring to the original WWII weapon. We could go into a lot of semantics but in some histories I have read they refer to the WWII weapon as a bazooka and the subsequent Korean War weapon as an anti-tank rocket launcher. The recoiless rifle would not be a bazooka or rocket launcher or I think there wouldn't have been a new moniker donned for the hardware. The names usually reflect operation except in the case of the "bazooka" hehe.
June 17th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
The RPG-7 has an 85mm HEAT warhead, I have seen an RPG-7 hit the left side of an M1A1 and it riochet off and hit the road. The M1 was made with armor that is anti-HEAT and anti-kenetic energy. No anti-tank shoulder fired rocket can defeat teM1, with the excepion of the Javlin and Wombat.
June 17th, 2005  
AussieNick
 
Quote:
Also, are you sure that the SAS was in North Iraq when that Iraqi battalion was taken on by Javelins
I never said where they were in Iraq (they were in Western Iraq for your info). And maybe you should do some research on the SASR in Iraq and what they have done.

This here is a copy of one of the troopers citations for his actions (name is removed for operational security.
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/Depa...CurrentId=2761
It is taken from the Australian Department Of Defence Website.


Quote:
An edited version of the Trooper’s citation reads as follows:



AUSTRALIAN ARMY

TO BE AWARDED THE MEDAL FOR GALLANTRY

TROOPER X

For acts of gallantry in action in hazardous circumstances in Iraq while on Operation FALCONER

Trooper X’s patrol was tasked with clearing an Iraqi installation, to prevent it being used for the command and control of Iraqi theatre ballistic missiles. Trooper X was the machine gunner in the exposed .50 Calibre mounting ring in his patrol vehicle. During the action, an enemy special operations force of two vehicles and up to 20 heavily armed personnel engaged the SAS patrol. Whilst in contact with numerically superior enemy forces, Trooper X’s actions in destroying the enemy vehicles gave the Australian force the freedom of movement to complete the mission.

In a hazardous situation and under fire, Trooper X immediately engaged and destroyed the first enemy vehicle with his Javelin missile system. Having limited the enemy’s ability to manoeuvre, the patrol assaulted forward and Trooper X engaged a further Iraqi position located to the south with his machine gun. Trooper X re-engaged the enemy with his machine gun, demonstrating great composure.

Trooper X then re-engaged and destroyed the second enemy vehicle with the Javelin, dispersing nearby enemy soldiers who were setting up a mortar position. Subsequently, as the patrol closed on the enemy position, Trooper X engaged a mortar tube with his sniper rifle, hitting the tube with his first round and causing the weapon to explode. At this stage individual enemy started to surrender, creating a situation where surrendering soldiers were intermingled with other enemy who were still engaging the SAS patrol. Trooper X then judiciously placed well aimed shots within close proximity of the enemy that were still engaging from concealed positions, forcing them to surrender.

Throughout this engagement, Trooper X demonstrated skills and composure of the highest standard. He acted with very little direction and his decisions and subsequent actions had significant impacts on the outcome of the engagement. His actions in destroying the enemy vehicles gave the Australian assaulting forces freedom of movement and put the Iraqi forces under immediate pressure. Fort he entire engagement, Trooper X was subject to enemy fire passing close overhead. He readily accepted the personal danger and disregarded his own safety while acquiring the enemy vehicles with the Javelin. His conduct whilst in a hazardous situation in contact with numerically superior enemy forces was most gallant and led to the success of the action.

Trooper X’s acts of gallantry played a crucial role in gaining the initiative for his patrol and defeating an aggressive enemy force. His actions contributed significantly to the Coalition’s strategic success in denying Iraq the use of their theatre ballistic missiles. His performance brings great credit to the SAS Regiment, the Australian Army and the Australian Defence Force.


That is just one example of the actions.
June 29th, 2005  
Ashes
 
After the success of the Egyptians with their Soviet Sagger 'suitcase missiles' against the Israelis in '73, Chobham armour put a stop to man portable HEAT missiles, at least in a frontal attack, but the Swedes were quick to spot the archilles heel of Chobham tanks and came up with the first top attack missile, BILL.

Other countries have followed the top attack idea.
Now with a myriad of top attack weapons, not many countries would design a shoulder fired missile without top attack.

The Swedes have a very good set up with the 600 mt short range soft launch MTB LAW missile, it has a BILL 2 warhead and can be fired from an enclosed space, the BILL meadium range, and the 7 km. STRIX 120mm smart mortar, not sure if they have the top attack version of TOW, probably would have.

Do you think the lone infantryman with top attack tamdem head HEAT missiles is getting back
on top [excuse the pun] in tank killing?
June 29th, 2005  
jackehammond
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ashes
After the success of the Egyptians with their Soviet Sagger 'suitcase missiles' against the Israelis in '73, Chobham armour put a stop to man portable HEAT missiles, at least in a frontal attack, but the Swedes were quick to spot the archilles heel of Chobham tanks and came up with the first top attack missile, BILL.

Other countries have followed the top attack idea.
Now with a myriad of top attack weapons, not many countries would design a shoulder fired missile without top attack.

The Swedes have a very good set up with the 600 mt short range soft launch MTB LAW missile, it has a BILL 2 warhead and can be fired from an enclosed space, the BILL meadium range, and the 7 km. STRIX 120mm smart mortar, not sure if they have the top attack version of TOW, probably would have.

Do you think the lone infantryman with top attack tamdem head HEAT missiles is getting back
on top [excuse the pun] in tank killing?
Dear Member,

The BILL is more of an overflight type weapon instead of the true top attack. The true top attack dives on the target so the HEAT warhead is penetrating at a 0 degree angle straight in. The Bill over flys the tank by about a half meter and explodes its warhead at a 60 degee angle. Since mst tanks angled front hull and turret armor is at a 60 to 45 degree angle this cancels it out giving a 0 degree penetration path. I have some information given me by Bofors years ago and I will try and scan it and post it so members can see the unique way that Bofors was able to take the second generation SACLOS antitank missile and make it work with out having to do the complex R&D required of a 3rd generation like the Javelin.

As to the statement about the TOW being an infantry weapon. It is more an infantry support weapon. In a fast advance or retreat it can not keep up with a fast moving infantry unit. Hence the reason the US Army also developed the DRAGON (ie a dog according to most I talked to).

Jack E. Hammond