Chinese ATGM discussion

[Blitzo]

And I am not saying that, if you look at my post I did not deny that the new ATGM is man portable. What I am contending is that it can be used in the same effect if not manner like the Javelin which the OP contended makes the HJ-12 obsolete.

1)The HJ-12/Javelin offers a capability to take out the MBTs without the need to set up like a conventional ATGM, at the cost of range and safety.

2)This new ATGM, at least in this configuration, offers the capability for infantry to safely take out armor from a distance while still remaining man-portable. But it cannot be fired like a Javelin, which is the whole point of my contention.

Looking back at your post, I'm not sure how to interpret this part below, apart from the idea that you are saying you believe this missile is not man portable?
Or, are you saying there's something different between an "ATGM designed to be used by foot soldiers" and "ATGM that are designed to be man portable"?

Because again, that seems like a very arbitrary categorical separation where there is no reason to be one.

There is a difference between a ATGM designed to be used by foot soldiers and ATGM that are designed to be man portable. The former is intended to be used by soldier on the ground in mobile squads where the option of "hiding behind a mountain" and shooting a ATGM is neither practical or optional all the time.

As for your arguments, my counters, are that:
1) the primary benefit of HJ-12/Javelin is in their range and in their fire and forget capability, and improved range from legacy systems like M47 or MILAN. Whether they lack a tripod or not is relatively minor, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing missiles like Spike MR competing with Javelin in the past (again, Spike MR lacks NLOS capability, and includes a tripod -- aka it's basically a Javelin but with a tripod) in various tenders.
2) the benefit of this new ATGM and weapons like MMP, is that they offer even greater range than the likes of HJ-12/Javelin while offering NLOS capability as well.. and in the case of MMP, is slightly heavier and requires slightly more set up to use, but still very much man portable and usable by light infantry. The ability or inability to be "fired like Javelin" is not very consequential. More relevant is total weight, and being 3-4 kg heavier is no big deal -- or at least, they remain in the same weight class.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Looking back at your post, I'm not sure how to interpret this part below, apart from the idea that you are saying you believe this missile is not man portable?
Or, are you saying there's something different between an "ATGM designed to be used by foot soldiers" and "ATGM that are designed to be man portable"?

Because again, that seems like a very arbitrary categorical separation where there is no reason to be one.

ATGM's designed to be used by foot soliders : RPG-7, AT-4 ,Gustav, Javelin and the HJ-12.
ATGM's that are designed to be man portable : Tow, Kornet and HJ-8.

There is a distinct difference here, the first is designed to be fire by soldiers without the need to set up like a traditional ATGM. At it's simplest is just flip up the sight, remove the cover and unlock the safety. The Javelin and HJ-12 barely fit but it offers much more capability.

The second requires that at the very least you need to set up a tripod or a stable firing platform. attach the missile to the guidance system and then fire.

If changing the wordings from "ATGM that are designed to be man portable" to "shoulder fired ATGMs" can clear up the confusion I am more than glad to do so.

As for your arguments, my counters, are that:
1) the primary benefit of HJ-12/Javelin is in their range and in their fire and forget capability, and improved range from legacy systems like M47 or MILAN. Whether they lack a tripod or not is relatively minor, otherwise we wouldn't be seeing missiles like Spike MR competing with Javelin in the past (again, Spike MR lacks NLOS capability, and includes a tripod -- aka it's basically a Javelin but with a tripod) in various tenders.
2) the benefit of this new ATGM and weapons like MMP, is that they offer even greater range than the likes of HJ-12/Javelin while offering NLOS capability as well.. and in the case of MMP, is slightly heavier and requires slightly more set up to use, but still very much man portable and usable by light infantry. The ability or inability to be "fired like Javelin" is not very consequential. More relevant is total weight, and being 3-4 kg heavier is no big deal -- or at least, they remain in the same weight class.

1) It will be if you are required to fire in a hurry and yet do not have the time or the space to set up. The Spike MR differs in that it has a guidance wire which gives the additional benefit of jamming immunity. Plus costs of acquisition does also play a role in tender.

We can clearly see the wire trailing behind the missile.
2)" More relevant is total weight, and being 3-4 kg heavier is no big deal -- or at least, they remain in the same weight class."
Except this is no longer the case, the Javelin introduced a new lightweight CLU that cuts the total weight down to 19.73Kg with the original missile. Whereas other nation that had taken advantage of newer technologies had develop similar missiles of the same capability but lighter. The Japanese have the Type 1 LMAT which weights in a 17.5kg which when you compare to the likes of a MMP and Spike LR-2 is pretty significant weight saving, especially for foot infantry. The HJ-12 on paper at least has a ready to fire weight of 19.5kg. Every single kilo on a soldier unless it can be reasonably justified is a burden.

 

[by78]

And now we are back at square one. Instead it is you who is moving the goal post, first you say that the Javelin is designed to be fired from a tripod which I handily disprove by showing that it can be fired from the shoulder you change to the position that the new ATGM can also fire from the shoulder, but without evidence of it doing so.
Who is doing what fallacy again ?

I see you still don't understand the purpose the post in question, which was to demonstrate your logical fallacy by way of an example. Despite my subsequent explanation to the same effect, you still don't get it, so allow me to explain it again.

First, let me draw your attention to that explanation (see underlined text in the screen capture below). Please read it and keep it in mind, as I will come back to it later.



As I said, I demonstrated your logical error by way of an example. Specifically, I purposely employed your logic to arrive at a wildly incorrect conclusion. In your original reply to Insignius, you asserted that "judging by both the pictures and the video, this new ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e: fixed position) which means that needs to be set up pre firing". Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when the body of evidence is very limited. One therefore needs to be cautious in drawing conclusions based on such limited imagery and footage of the new missile. I demonstrated your error by showing merely two images of the Javelin (one mounted on a tripod and one on a Stryker) and facetiously concluding from the two images that the Javelin is "designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e. fixed position)", in the very same manner that you had concluded that this new Chinese missile is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e. fixed position) based on a short video and a single image of it being mounted on a tripod. I further signified the facetiousness of my post by ending it with the words "see what I did there?" and the emoji "".

In other words, I knew Javelin can be shoulder-fired all along, but for the sake of argument, I 'concluded' otherwise based on the limited evidence of two images, thus demonstrating how a tendency to make undisciplined assumptions based on limited evidence can lead to wildly incorrect conclusions.

Are you still unclear?

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I see you still don't understand the purpose the post in question, which was to demonstrate your logical fallacy by way of an example. Despite my subsequent explanation to the same effect, you still don't get it, so allow me to explain it again.

First, let me draw your attention to that explanation (see underlined text in the screen capture below). Please read it.

As I said, I demonstrated your logical error by way of an example. Specifically, I purposely employed your logic to arrive at a wildly incorrect conclusion. In your original reply to Insignius, you asserted that "judging by both the pictures and the video, this new ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e: fixed position) which means that needs to be set up pre firing". Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, especially when the body of evidence is very limited. One needs to be prudent and cautious in drawing conclusions based on such limited imagery and footage of the new missile. I demonstrated your error by showing two images of the Javelin (one mounted on a tripod and one on a Stryker) and facetiously concluding that Javelin is "designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e. fixed position)", in the very same manner that you had concluded that this new Chinese missile is designed to be fired from a tripod (i.e. fixed position) based on a single image of it being mounted on a tripod. My facetiousness was further marked by the words "see what I did there?" and the emoji "".

In other words, I knew Javelin can be shoulder-fired all along, but for the sake of argument, I 'concluded' otherwise based on the 'limited' evidence of two images, thus demonstrating how a tendency to make undisciplined assumptions based on limited evidence can lead to wildly incorrect conclusions.

Are you still unclear?


View attachment 70937

Ah stop with the word twisting. You don't get brownie points by pointing at abstract and saying it might exist.
Your so called " absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is more argument from ignorance then anything else.

The difference here between my argument and yours is that I have video proof of the latter while you have none. That is the fallacy here. Your's is at best a suggestion not evidence, in which case I can put fort the evidence that in the future the Javelin can weight below 10kgs with a range of 20 plus KM. Never mind I have no photographic proof or literal evidence to proof it. See how BS that is ?

I have never seen a more intellectually dishonest prick like you before. Here is a hint, wipe that pathetic smug off your face because apart from posting mountains of pictures online without any connotations like some basement data miner you are practically a faceless prick who fails at very single intellectual discussion and is force to the low down move of goal post moving and hypocrisy.

 

[by78]

The difference here between my argument and yours is that I have video proof of the latter while you have none. That is the fallacy here.

Wait, you have video evidence to prove that this new Chinese ATGM cannot be shoulder-fired? If so, why have you not shared it with us? It's not my fallacy or fault if you withhold evidence.

 

[Blitzo]

ATGM's designed to be used by foot soliders : RPG-7, AT-4 ,Gustav, Javelin and the HJ-12.
ATGM's that are designed to be man portable : Tow, Kornet and HJ-8.

There is a distinct difference here, the first is designed to be fire by soldiers without the need to set up like a traditional ATGM. At it's simplest is just flip up the sight, remove the cover and unlock the safety. The Javelin and HJ-12 barely fit but it offers much more capability.

The second requires that at the very least you need to set up a tripod or a stable firing platform. attach the missile to the guidance system and then fire.

If changing the wordings from "ATGM that are designed to be man portable" to "shoulder fired ATGMs" can clear up the confusion I am more than glad to do so.

1) It will be if you are required to fire in a hurry and yet do not have the time or the space to set up. The Spike MR differs in that it has a guidance wire which gives the additional benefit of jamming immunity. Plus costs of acquisition does also play a role in tender.

We can clearly see the wire trailing behind the missile.
2)" More relevant is total weight, and being 3-4 kg heavier is no big deal -- or at least, they remain in the same weight class."
Except this is no longer the case, the Javelin introduced a new lightweight CLU that cuts the total weight down to 19.73Kg with the original missile. Whereas other nation that had taken advantage of newer technologies had develop similar missiles of the same capability but lighter. The Japanese have the Type 1 LMAT which weights in a 17.5kg which when you compare to the likes of a MMP and Spike LR-2 is pretty significant weight saving, especially for foot infantry. The HJ-12 on paper at least has a ready to fire weight of 19.5kg. Every single kilo on a soldier unless it can be reasonably justified is a burden.

Frankly I just disagree with your categorization of them in that way. Even in the systems you described in each of those two categories, there are degrees of weight and complexity -- an AT4 is far easier to use than a Javelin or HJ-12 for example.

If you categorized them as a spectrum I wouldn't have much of an issue with your position.


I'm also not sure what your point about Javelin's new lightweight CLU is meant to demonstrate -- the fact that Javelin with the legacy CLU is still considered to be "used by foot soldiers" by your own description, a newer and lighter CLU doesn't make Javelin with legacy CLU suddenly "not used by foot soldiers".

Which is really my entire point -- classifying these all of these weapons as "designed to be used by foot soldiers" versus "man portable" IMO not a very useful way of classifying the weapons' mobility, ease of use, and portability, and that describing them on a spectrum relative to one another is a far more accurate way of doing so.
I have nothing else to add to the matter beyond that.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Wait, you have video evidence to prove that this new Chinese ATGM cannot be shoulder-fired? If so, why have you not shared it with us? It's not my fallacy or fault if you withhold evidence.

The evidence is on you to proof something, for my part the evidence that this ATGM is designed to be fired from a tripod is clear in the video. And there is no other evidence that proves other wise, apart from your ramblings.

Other supporting evidence is
1) The targeting system is similar to that of the HJ-8L and the Kornet. The operator peers down into a scope with one hand on a joystick. This precludes a handheld function for this ATGM.

You on the other hand goes like this :" This ATGM can be shoulder fired, (sorry could), but I have no shred of evidence supporting this other then "well it might be in the future".

 

[by78]

Ah stop with the word twisting. You don't get brownie points by pointing at abstract and saying it might exist.

I wasn't trying to score brownie points. I don't even like brownies.

Seriously, you should have by now become familiar with demonstration by examples and analogies, which is my favorite pedagogical tool used to explain things to you whenever you are stuck on something, as seen here and here.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

Frankly I just disagree with your categorization of them in that way. Even in the systems you described in each of those two categories, there are degrees of weight and complexity -- an AT4 is far easier to use than a Javelin or HJ-12 for example.

If you categorized them as a spectrum I wouldn't have much of an issue with your position.


I'm also not sure what your point about Javelin's new lightweight CLU is meant to demonstrate -- the fact that Javelin with the legacy CLU is still considered to be "used by foot soldiers" by your own description, a newer and lighter CLU doesn't make Javelin with legacy CLU suddenly "not used by foot soldiers".

Which is really my entire point -- classifying these all of these weapons as "designed to be used by foot soldiers" versus "man portable" IMO not a very useful way of classifying the weapons' mobility, ease of use, and portability, and that describing them on a spectrum relative to one another is a far more accurate way of doing so.
I have nothing else to add to the matter beyond that.

Then we will have to agree to disagree on this, and I will add that while an AT4 is easier to fire than a Javelin or a HJ-12. A Javelin or a HJ-12 does not need a tripod to fire.

My point with the weight reduction and ease of use is that it is inaccurate to say that a MMP or Spike can be use like a Javelin or the HJ-12.

"Which is really my entire point -- classifying these all of these weapons as "designed to be used by foot soldiers" versus "man portable" IMO not a very useful way of classifying the weapons' mobility, ease of use, and portability, and that describing them on a spectrum relative to one another is a far more accurate way of doing so.
I have nothing else to add to the matter beyond that."

Well my point for this matter is that it is highly inaccurate to lump all ATGM weapons into a existing bracket of practical usage. And that describing them on a spectrum of how armies are trained and expected to use them respectively on an individual basis base on their parameters and capability is a far more accurate way of doing so.
I too have nothing else to add to the matter beyond that.

 

[Deleted member 13312]

I wasn't trying to score brownie points. I don't even like brownies.

Seriously, you should have by now become familiar with demonstration by examples and analogies, which is my favorite pedagogical tool used to explain things to you whenever you are stuck on something, as seen here and here.

Maybe take a bit of your own evidence and stop digging your own hole any deeper. Either show proof for a positive which is the standard reasoning or don't.