Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

**Kiwigrunt** · 02-27-2010

In the ‘New rules of war’ thread there are some interesting posts regarding effect vs efficiency, also with regards to economics.

In the ‘UK in Afghanistan’ tread baboon6 and davidbfpo linked this video, where a UK section fires a Javelin at a suspected enemy position thought to hold a single shooter. Note in this video also that the section has two DMs with sniper rifles with one carrying a Javelin and the other has a Minimi (with but stock extended) strapped to his pack as a sidearm. Also it did not look like the GPMG gunner had a number 2, unless it was the DM with the MINIMI. But I digress.

It must be the Dutch and the builder in me that screams ‘waste’ when I see that. From both an economical perspective (which rightly does not concern the trigger pullers who will use what is at their disposal, including CAS), but also from a carried weight perspective. No doubt weapons like Javelin and Spike are unsurpassed against MBTs in a ‘conventional’, like against like war, and also where their extreme range is required. However, in A-stan against AKs, and up to around a range of 500 m, how sensible is this trend towards using what used to be battalion/company level support weapons, at section level? (Will Javelin be the next IW?) Is the range advantage the big issue here and if so, is Javelin indeed often used at section level in excess of 500/600 m?

A historical example that would support the use of the longer-range weapons is Goose Green where B-coy 2-Para was pinned down for several hours in open ground and it required anti-tank platoon’s Milan to get them unstuck. But this was at battalion level.

There are many different unguided weapons available and they are improving in quality and effect, from the lighter M72 up to the heavier Metador and Bunkerfaust. Even the 1948 designed Charlie Guts-ache is still in the running. Australia is purchasing new ones.
Canada also still uses the Carl Gustav. Is there any feedback of its use in A-stan?

It seems that UK and US units at the sharp end of the stick are leaning increasingly towards the use of Javelin, almost exclusively at times. Again, is this mainly because of range advantage or is there more to it? Is there still good reason (other than from an accountants perspective) for retaining the heavier Bunkerfaust/SMAW type weapons or is the super expensive and heavy Javelin/Spike at section level the way of the future?

**Fuchs** · 02-27-2010

Well, first you look at the per-unit price of a Javelin shot.

The you look at a realistic storage life (not the shelf life that can be extended by an inspection) or if you dare to complicate the calculation even more: The life expectation as a 1st rate AT munition (about 15 years usually).

Then you look at the time that has already gone past and depreciate accordingly. That can take about 5-10 years off that Javelin, about half of the price.

Yet this calculation was only relevant if you expect to need the munition in another conflict or to replace it with a new round.

The cost of the round is zero if you won't do either. This is one of the great lessons of economic science; it helps us to be rational about this instead of trusting our guts (if we are informed).
The key here is that the money was already spent - sunk costs. Sunk costs must never be considered in a decision - they's past, sun, irrelevant.

Only opportunity costs (we would have needed that round in a later conflict) or replacement costs would be relevant.

Finally a last, unrealistic and thus irrelevant complication: The opportunity cost could also be positive if you would have sold that round. That does never seem to happen and is thus irrelevant.

In short: The Javelin shot was most likely dirt cheap.

----

Now about force planning. That is a different game, it's about the decision to buy munitions. Nobody buys Javelins to bust bunkers (I hope - the Russians offered thermobaric Krizanthemas, though). These munitions are usually bought for other purposes and their use against low value targets is usually just an improvisation.
The typical dedicated anti-bunker munition is an unguided 300-600m Panzerfaust or Bazooka.

----

Personally I wonder why people keep carrying such heavy munitions in AFG. Even a M136 is quite heavy. The Javelin firing post has a great thermal sight (if you have the batteries to run it) and may be justified as a platoon thermal sensor - but the missiles are odd.

**Schmedlap** · 02-27-2010

I think this is one of those questions that has considerations rather than a clear answer. However, I think those considerations will usually lead one to leave the Javelin back at the patrol base.

The last time that a unit I was in carried Javelins was 2003. After that, we simply never saw any reasonable use for them. They are heavy, bulky, and pack more punch than is necessary. We did carry AT-4's, on every deployment, but not on every mission. Those are relatively heavy and bulky, but not nearly to the degree of a Javelin (and there is no $500K CLU to carry along before and after firing).

My thought has always been that if you cannot rely on indirect fire from your M203's, then you probably need to rethink your task organization or execution. (Obviously, AT-4's and M203's don't have nearly the range of a Javelin, but if the threat is that far away then how dire is the situation?)

Now, if you are conducting a mounted patrol and weight is not an issue, and you have sufficient room to bring Javelins/CLUs, then why not? Other than that situation, the negatives seem to outweigh the positives.

**jcustis** · 02-27-2010

However, in A-stan against AKs, and up to around a range of 500 m, how sensible is this trend towards using what used to be battalion/company level support weapons, at section level? (Will Javelin be the next IW?) Is the range advantage the big issue here and if so, is Javelin indeed often used at section level in excess of 500/600 m?

In Afghanstan at least, we might see a future curtailing of employment of Javelin and similar PGMs in the wake of the Marjah 27 civilian death incident. Being able to employ a precision weapon to engage a single or even multiple-shooter threat, located inside of a structure, is likely to get a lot more difficult.

I'm already concvinced that the 60 Minutes spot on the SF Team resulted in a shift in at least one application of force policy, and that only took about two weeks to come to fruition.

**reed11b** · 02-27-2010

There is certainly a need to project HE at the squad/platoon lvl, but are expensive precision AT weapons the best way to do it? See my previous posts on precision mortar rounds and LOS HE weapons at the squad/platoon lvl.
Reed

**Chris jM** · 02-28-2010

Linking into what has been said above I'm interested in the role an AMW (Anti-Material Wpn) could have at the squad lvl. A .50cal/ 14.5mm rifle, in the role of an AMW, could fill some of the capability gap in the sect/squad/pl for negligible loss of mobility.

It's not an ATGM in it's ability to defeat armour, but the wpns can deliver accurate fire with a high degree of penetration against field fortified posns (say, a crew-served wpn in a bunker) or against a lightly armoured veh.

If the Jav/ ATGM is over-kill for the need to achieve destruction of an eny at a range outside the 40mm can provide for, would an AMW be of benefit either at the sect or pl level?

**William F. Owen** · 02-28-2010

Originally Posted by Chris jM

.
It's not an ATGM in it's ability to defeat armour, but the wpns can deliver accurate fire with a high degree of penetration against field fortified posns (say, a crew-served wpn in a bunker) or against a lightly armoured veh.

Yes, Long range rifles may prove effective, but it's the degree of penetration and blast that are the issues. In my neighbourhood you will probably have to perforated 0.5-1m of rocks and packed earth to kill the bunker, and this is certainly an issue for some of the fortified buildings.

The issue for me, is to be able to hit the bunker from where I can get a shot, so maybe 8-1,800m , and not have to shuffle up to 1-200m to hit it with LASM, or AT-4.

**Kiwigrunt** · 02-27-2010

I just had some further thoughts on this.

Let's say that up to about 20 years ago, infantry anti tank weapons existed in two categories, once the likes of the 106 kickless cannon were replaced with ATGMs. There were the light and medium unguided weapons like M72 and Carl Gustav at section up to company level [1] and there were the heavy guided weapons like Milan and TOW above company level[2]. Since then, the lighter weapons keep getting bigger and heavier (and slightly smarter with improved optics) as we demand an ever increasing bang (for an ever increasing buck). At the same time technology allows the heavier weapons to become increasingly light and compact (relatively speaking).

Are we reaching a point where the top end medium weapons of category 1 are being pushed into redundancy by category 2, leaving only the lighter weapons like M72 up to AT4 and its variants with a right to exist? I should think that the cut-off point there would be around the 6 to 8 kg mark.

And to what extent is it mainly the beancounters that throw lifelines to the heavier weapons of category 1 (read also Fuchs’ input).

My personal thoughts are that there is definitely still a place for the light to medium ‘dumb’ weapons like Metador, Carl Gustav and Panzerfaust at around the 8 to 14 kg mark, even disregarding economics. But, to mirror Fuchs and Schedlap, their use in a relatively low intensity conflict like A-stan would, for weight reasons, still need to be carefully considered. Here something like the 40 mm MV revolver might be a more sensible option. Question is, would that be carried instead of something current or in addition to….my guess is in addition to. I’m sure that soldier with the sniper rifle and the Minimi could carry a bit more…..or perhaps the GPMG gunner? Now I’m just being facetious.

**davidbfpo** · 02-27-2010

IIRC the use of Javelin in Afghanistan was prompted by their advancing redundancy and so firing them off came along as a brilliant idea.

I was puzzled at the UK patrol's weapon mix and why carry Javelin out of the nearby patrol base anyway. The patrol appeared to only go 600-800m from the patrol base; surely Javelin could have been left there?

**Schmedlap** · 02-28-2010

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)?

**baboon6** · 03-01-2010

Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt

In the ‘New rules of war’ thread there are some interesting posts regarding effect vs efficiency, also with regards to economics.

In the ‘UK in Afghanistan’ tread baboon6 and davidbfpo linked this video, where a UK section fires a Javelin at a suspected enemy position thought to hold a single shooter. Note in this video also that the section has two DMs with sniper rifles with one carrying a Javelin and the other has a Minimi (with but stock extended) strapped to his pack as a sidearm. Also it did not look like the GPMG gunner had a number 2, unless it was the DM with the MINIMI. But I digress.

It must be the Dutch and the builder in me that screams ‘waste’ when I see that. From both an economical perspective (which rightly does not concern the trigger pullers who will use what is at their disposal, including CAS), but also from a carried weight perspective. No doubt weapons like Javelin and Spike are unsurpassed against MBTs in a ‘conventional’, like against like war, and also where their extreme range is required. However, in A-stan against AKs, and up to around a range of 500 m, how sensible is this trend towards using what used to be battalion/company level support weapons, at section level? (Will Javelin be the next IW?) Is the range advantage the big issue here and if so, is Javelin indeed often used at section level in excess of 500/600 m?

A historical example that would support the use of the longer-range weapons is Goose Green where B-coy 2-Para was pinned down for several hours in open ground and it required anti-tank platoon’s Milan to get them unstuck. But this was at battalion level.

There are many different unguided weapons available and they are improving in quality and effect, from the lighter M72 up to the heavier Metador and Bunkerfaust. Even the 1948 designed Charlie Guts-ache is still in the running. Australia is purchasing new ones.
Canada also still uses the Carl Gustav. Is there any feedback of its use in A-stan?

It seems that UK and US units at the sharp end of the stick are leaning increasingly towards the use of Javelin, almost exclusively at times. Again, is this mainly because of range advantage or is there more to it? Is there still good reason (other than from an accountants perspective) for retaining the heavier Bunkerfaust/SMAW type weapons or is the super expensive and heavy Javelin/Spike at section level the way of the future?

In the video at least one of the soldiers is carrying an M72A9 and that and the AT4 have been extensively used by UK troops in Afghanistan. A poster on another forum I frequent wrote that the AT4s his unit had received a year or two ago were unreliable with a high percentage of blinds; possibly they were in storage too long. The M72 (always referred to by British soldiers as a "66" after its calibre) is more popular, not least because of its lighter weight. At present it is being issued to British troops in Helmand instead of the AT4. The anti-structure version of the Matador weapon is meant to enter service with the British Army later this year, having been originally ordered as far back as 2006:

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Should.....-a0168432753

http://www.rafael.co.il/marketing/SI...ILES/5/925.pdf

So they are not exclusively using Javelins...

**Schmedlap** · 03-01-2010

Originally Posted by baboon6

A poster on another forum I frequent wrote that the AT4s his unit had received a year or two ago were unreliable with a high percentage of blinds; possibly they were in storage too long.

Blinds? Is that a British/Aussie word for dud? Or does that mean the sights were broken off?