Effectiveness of Active Anti-ATGM Defences

Perhaps the real utility of the laser dazzler is for use when supporting PLA infantry (though official literature would claim use for suppressing ATGM optics to get around some inconvenient treaties)?

Gollevainen said:

If the ATGMs range and/or the operational terrain will make it possiple then yeas in some cases. Ofcourse not in all situations, but what happens in the actual combat is always hard to tell, its related to so many variables. Better to say it in this way: The increasing range of ATGMs will enable infantry to engage enemy tanks if the terrain gives you clear unobstacle-reach.



Yeas you can. If in 1 km range you can mask artillery tubes that have just been fired, which bit hotter than human bodies, then with the current technology you can maks targets with the same heatgeneration than human body alongside with the heat that leaves to the tube of the ATGM launcher.



Yeas. The basic idea is that your ATGMs are already set to firing mode before the tanks will appear to your line of sight. And if you can set non-modern howitsers to firing mode in few minutes, a small, modern and compact ATGM is set in mere secconds from normal trained troops. And as soon as you fire your ATGMs, if the situation requires, you are out of the fireposition as fast as you can, even if you take the ATGM with you, you can scoop out in mere secconds. You don't just wait in idlle, eyes fixed to the aimingsight and wait untill the tank gets its "Laser dazzler" fixed upon you. These are basic stuff in all infantry fighting...

Click to expand...

Yes, well-trained infantry either engaged in active tank-hunting patrols or defending from prepared positions either stalk the tanks out of their field of vision, or engage them from along fixed lines when the tanks enter specially prepared kill zones. And a few (very few) weapons like Javelin may give the infantry an easily (sort of) portable weapon that actually has a decent chance of destroying a tank.

Most infantry anti-tank weapons, especially the lighter you get, are of marginal use against many, even most tanks. And historically, most infantrymen who even attempt to attack tanks with anti-tank weapons have perished in the event. If the tanks don't get them, their accompanying infantry probably will.

Tanks aren't as blind as they are made out to be, especially nowadays. It used to be, for example, that infantry would precede the tanks in close country and at night because they had superior vision; by the 1970's or 1980's that was changing, as first Low Light Television gave tanks the ability to see at night (and at distance) and then thermal sights gave them the ability to see through vegetation and buildings (within limits). Newer sights also allow tank commanders to scan wider fields of vision around them, and tanks (of course)in troop/platoon or squadron/company formations are each assigned a specific arc to cover. Consequently, tanks often take the lead while the infantry follow close nearby even at night and in close country. Infantry often rely upon tanks for information as to where the enemy is, including enemy infantry. Tank sights (and sensors on reconnaissance vehicles) don't fully eliminate the close-in "eyes and ears role" of infantry in combined arms operations, but a lot of myths regarding tanks and anti-tank weapons need to be dispelled.

Although they may be effective, I think that their exsistance is a sign of the tanks increasing vunerability on the modern battlefield. Don't get me wrong, I am a major believer in the power of the tank. However, putting active defences on the tank, laser dazzlers, explosive reactive armour and any number of other defensive gadgets may create tanks that are too valueable to be used, much as dreadnoughts were in WWI. It shows that the tank, while still useful, will one day become obsolete because the cost of defending them enough to make them survivable is rising and becoming very high.

On the issue of tanks vs. infantry, I think that the advantage is, presently with the tanks. Even with the longest-ranged infantry operated modern ATGMs, tanks can still close the distance quickly and destroy the infantry's advantage that was provided by the range. Moreover, although infantry can cause casualties to a mass of advancing tanks, there is little to prevent the tanks from smashing on through to their objective. This is shown by two historical examples. In Iraq in 2003, American tanks simply drove into the center of Baghdad, through a heavily urban enviroment, ideal anti-tank country, despite the fact that they were attacked all the way by masses of light infantry. They were able to use massed firepower to cut a swathe through and mechinized infantry to clear the route as well. With the route clear they did not stop to destroy all the Iraqi "dismounts". They simply rolled on down the highway to central Baghdad. Granted, the Iraqis were not armed with much modern anti-tank weaponry, but the fact that they were only able to mission kill 1 Abrams does not bode well. Secondly, in Lebanon the Israelis suffered armoured casualties but it did not effect overall operational effectiveness much and the Israeli tanks were still able to bypass Hezbollah infantry strong points to be reduced later and reached the Litani River (their objective, however arbitrary it might have been) regardless. If that war had gone on much longer, this process would have been completed with the destruction of the bypassed Hezbollah positions.

In both situations, more professional infantry forces with better and more abundant anti-tank weaponry would have done better. But the problem remains. Infantry has an incredibly difficult time preventing a large armoured force from punching through their lines and simply bypassing them, moving on to their objective. Of course it is possible that in the larger context of a battle, there would be armoured counterattacks, air strikes, artillery and other support options that the infantry could depend on that are not present in these examples, but the infantry on its own cannot stop an armoured fist.

One recent example of an armored force being defeated by infantry defenders would be the Battle of Grozny, Dec 1994 to Jan 1995. The Russians sent 120 tanks into Grozny and lost 105 of them. Their 81st and 131st brigades were destroyed by Chechen defenders armed with small arms and RPGs. The initial Russian offensive was completely blunted by this disaster.

So, well-trained infantry can defeat a large armored force provided it fights with the right tactics in favorable terrain.

alexycyap said:

One recent example of an armored force being defeated by infantry defenders would be the Battle of Grozny, Dec 1994 to Jan 1995. The Russians sent 120 tanks into Grozny and lost 105 of them. Their 81st and 131st brigades were destroyed by Chechen defenders armed with small arms and RPGs. The initial Russian offensive was completely blunted by this disaster.

So, well-trained infantry can defeat a large armored force provided it fights with the right tactics in favorable terrain.

Click to expand...

Russian and US army has brutally discover that there tanks forces were ill suited for urban warfare,according to miltech,with the rise mega cities in 21 century,urban warfare will be the war of future.

challenge said:

Russian and US army has brutally discover that there tanks forces were ill suited for urban warfare,according to miltech,with the rise mega cities in 21 century,urban warfare will be the war of future.

Click to expand...

Not exactly.

The problem is poor tactics, training and equipment. Tanks, if unsupported can be easily ambushed. Tanks operating in a proper combined arms tactic, supported by infantry, complement infantry attacks by providing heavily protected direct fire capability, and obstacle clearance.

urban warfare is trap for modern army,and could be very demoralizing in urban battlefield.

why not just siege the cities. go around them, bring down some mortar. i don't think it would be difficult if you are willing to risk the civilian dying in the siege!

Destroying a city a turning it to rubble does not capture it and does not make the battle to capture that city any easier. The perfect historical example of this is Stalingrad.

Even the best ERA is going to pose a potential problem for infantry accompanied by tanks in street fighting. The blast and concussive effects, never mind what fragments there may be, will not go over very well with them, especially since the infantry may literally be only feet away from the tanks at some times.

Mind you, it'll take some rather extensive battle experience to see what existing active ATGM defences are really capable off, whether they use ERA or other means (or both). So far, such experience is still somewhat limited and the results not entirely clear, although to date ERA itself has had mixed success; other active ATGMs defenses may prove more successful in the future.