Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[Schmedlap]

Javelin is heavy, bulky, takes longer to employ (versus an AT-4). One of the recurring themes in A'Stan is the issue of how much weight Soldiers carry and how mobile they are.

The elation that a PFC felt in OIF I upon destroying a T-72 with a Javelin was not along the lines "woo hoo - I just made a big bang." Rather it was "thank you, God, I no longer need to carry that awkward sonovabitch."

What is the added capability that you get from a Javelin that you cannot get from a few extra rounds of 40mm HE or an AT-4 (other than added range and a bit more precision)?

[William F. Owen]

My broad conclusions are as follows, - and not necessarily more useful or insightful that anyone else's:

a.) The lowest level at which ATGMs cane be usefully controlled is Platoon. That is they must be employed within the framework of platoon tactics, and not below.

b.) The ability to deliver a point target attack to beyond 1,000m is almost certainly useful - especially against enemy ATGM and HMG posts/positions/fortified buildings etc etc.

c.) Javelin is a high cost weapon for this type of capability. There are cheaper ways to do the same thing.

e.) Why use ATGM against enemy snipers - when you have snipers in the platoon?

[J Wolfsberger]

What is the added capability that you get from a Javelin that you cannot get from a few extra rounds of 40mm HE or an AT-4 (other than added range and a bit more precision)?

Killing tanks. At longer ranges, and with more certainty.

Having said that, the leader in the story Kiwi wrote to start this thread, used a Javelin, I suspect, because he had it, and using it let him clear the sniper without risking any of his men. 40mm or an AT-4 would have been much more appropriate to the job, but it sounds like he didn't have those.

(Or, in keeping with other observations, he wanted to get rid of the awkward heavy thing once he had a good excuse to do so. )

[baboon6]

Killing tanks. At longer ranges, and with more certainty.

Having said that, the leader in the story Kiwi wrote to start this thread, used a Javelin, I suspect, because he had it, and using it let him clear the sniper without risking any of his men. 40mm or an AT-4 would have been much more appropriate to the job, but it sounds like he didn't have those.

(Or, in keeping with other observations, he wanted to get rid of the awkward heavy thing once he had a good excuse to do so. )

The section commander himself had a 40mm UGL on his SA80 and he did use it during the action that was filmed; as I wrote above at least one man had an M72 but I don't know if it was used or not, it's not show in the footage. The section also had fire support from 40mm GMGs at one stage.

[SethB]

If range estimation is an issue then why not issue a small laser rangefinder?

[jcustis]

If range estimation is an issue then why not issue a small laser rangefinder?

It might not even need a rangfinder attached. In the USMC squad structure, there should be a dude running about with a AN/PSQ-18 attached to his M203, and that dude should be giving the rocket gunner an ADDRAC with a computed range solution.

We don't do it in practice because we just don't freaking think about it, and in fact I only thought of the above once you asked the obvious question. Looks like I know what I'll be chatting with our Gunner about over dinner tonight!...rocket battle drill.

[Kiwigrunt]

If range estimation is an issue then why not issue a small laser rangefinder?

That would indeed appear to be the immediate simple solution. They are cheap, light and compact.
I also wonder why more advanced sights are not used more widely. They have been around for a while now and include night capability, range finding and can be matched to the munitions so that the cross hair automatically adjusts. Most light disposable AT weapons now have scope rails on them so it should not need to be that hard. These sights are meant to turn dumb weapons into half intelligent.
Photo’s show one on a Carl Gustav and IMI Shipon with its own.

(That Mini-Spike looks great. Wait till they come up with thermobaric heads...)

[SethB]

The reason that I first thought of the LRF was when I was considering Wilf's point about a .338 in the PLT.

An LRF takes a lot of the voodoo out of distance shooting. A BORS from Barret takes even more mystery out. Then it's just point and click to 1500M.

I'm not against using equipment to solve training issues. It's an American favorite.

[Ken White]

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

[Firn]

That would indeed appear to be the immediate simple solution. They are cheap, light and compact.

I also wonder why more advanced sights are not used more widely. They have been around for a while now and include night capability, range finding and can be matched to the munitions so that the cross hair automatically adjusts. Most light disposable AT weapons now have scope rails on them so it should not need to be that hard. These sights are meant to turn dumb weapons into half intelligent.

(That Mini-Spike looks great. Wait till they come up with thermobaric heads...)

The Dutch Marine Corps seems to use already DYNARANGE on their Panzerfaust 3. I wonder if the smaller warheads (60mm and 90mm) will get soon fielded and if a reusable rear container is possible with this specific design.

A weapon weight of 4-5 kg and a munition weight of a bit more than 3 kg seems to be a modern optimum compromise to me. The munition should have its own single-use rear barrel around itself and the weapon should be just barrel+sight+grip. That can be broken down to two very handy packages and there's no wasted container weight. Ammunition could use the Armbrust's marginal firing signature technology or normal tech - even a sustainer rocket could be used. The only fixed thing would be the calibre unless you use some kind of subcalibre design.

A wide array of warheads is of course a clear plus, and the Matador has a lot of them. But the subcalibre design allows your soldiers to train on one system and adapt it with a wider range of warheads-weights and thus targets, from modern MBTs, heavy bunkers to lightly fortified positions.

In consequence, the improved PzF 3-T replaced the original model in the late 1990s, introducing a dual hollow charge "tandem" warhead to defeat Explosive Reactive Armour. This means that the spike projecting from the warhead itself also contains an explosive charge to set off the reactive armour and free the path to the real armour for the main warhead. The latest incarnation of the Panzerfaust 3, the PzF 3-IT-600, can be fired from ranges up to 600 meters thanks to an advanced computer-assisted sighting and targeting mechanism.

As of 2005, there were two additional models in the development or testing stage, both relying on smaller and therefore lighter warheads. Those were the RGW (Rückstoßfreie Granatwaffe, Recoilless Grenade Weapon - which would make it just like the original in name and operation.) in calibers 60 and 90 millimeters. Both new weapons are expected to help facilitate the transition in German military doctrine from preparation for major tank battles to urban and low-level warfare.

Let us see how those new RGW work out...

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

The you use the simply the next LRF/FCS in your section/platoon

It might not even need a rangfinder attached. In the USMC squad structure, there should be a dude running about with a AN/PSQ-18 attached to his M203, and that dude should be giving the rocket gunner an ADDRAC with a computed range solution.

Jokes aside, even though I upped my range estimation skills thanks to hunting in our mountains, I'm still rather bad at range estimation, especially when you have to guess up and down steep slopes. A decent scope helps a lot, but a LRF makes things just sooo easy.




Firn