PLA News, Pics, and Discussion


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
First
It’s not just about the range of the munitions, but also the sensors. Can a tank identify a tactical golf cart (TGC) at 4km+ range, when said TGC is in cover as well?
I would say that the detection and engagement range advantage would always go to the TGC, since it will just be mounting normal ATGMs, and in most ambush scenarios, would have a similar profile as a ATGM team by taking advantage of cover and natural elevation/depressions etc.

However, on just the evidence of the pictures so far, I would query if the guided missile we have seen mounted really is for anti-tank work, as it is on the puny side.

Now, maybe it has top attack capacities, but then that would make it a very niche weapon for special forces/paratroopers to be carrying.

I would have thought that a traditional heavyweight ATGM like the HQ8/9/10 would have been the best choice if anti-tank was a major consideration, as those weapons would have the punch to trouble pretty much any modern MBT you might encounter on the battlefield, while still being useful as a direct fire weapon against non-tank targets like bunkers, high value targets and the like.

Looking at the TGC, it is clear that minimal weight is a major design requirement, that means top weight becomes a serious consideration, especially if you want to maintain some passable rough terrain capabilities. As such, I don’t think you can mount a traditional heavyweight ATGM on top without seriously limiting its mobility or introducing significant tip over risk.

The guided missile we have seen is likely intended for light armour, fortifications and heavy anti-material work primarily, and the TGC would not be squaring off against MBTs unless as an absolute last ditch hell merry play. The only other time the TGC might even think about taking a pot shot at a MBT is if it managed to sneak up for a rare shot, or going for the tracks to disable it.
Well first because of said limits of the TGC... :rolleyes: UTV vs the Tank you are going to a missile with shorter reach than the long range heavy models. The Tank has the weight to pack more sensors and detection system as would IFV and APC’s as long as we are not talking some third world relic.
This isn’t t the age of operation Barbarossa anymore, where T34 and Tigers would have dozens of shells pinging off the hulls well the crew tries to find their attacker.
The Blast of firing is going to expose the shooter the second they fire. Depending on seeker a laser will likely set off a laser detection system and with the rise of APS the first shot has to make the kill If you are going against armor. depending on cover and tactics used, sensors to counter effects may very. My argument has remained though that this is not a open and shut case with UTV’s packing missiles as the winner. Even a heavy ATGM may not be enough against a modern MBT or heavy IFV/APC.
This whole argument started with the assertion that ATGM have more range. The estimation was then backed by pointing to the 120mm Smoothbore gun listed for the German shell. My counter is that they can but more likely it’s equal to. Equal to as that ranging for the tank shell is the general effective range listing where a good crew may get more from the weapons system. For the ATGM side that range listing is based on a heavier ATGM and in optimum conditions Minimal maneuvering. As change those up and start banking about and the missile will run out of fuel. The weight limits of the UTV as you point out make the choice of missile and the types of sensors. Meaning a man portable model usually a middle weight meaning a missile more likely to be 1.5 km to 3 km range.
Conditions in the field tank being squared off against. In this case based off the shell listed a modern NATO type.
Moving that argument to a APC/IFV the situation changes but if you have a modern type again. It’s a question of making that first shot count because of you miss those class often have there own ATGM. Either from the main armament or infantry.
A bunker is a third situation type where in it’s not mobile and frankly waiting to be blown apart. Although a artillery piece or RPG would likely be cheaper.
 

kyuryu

Junior Member
First


Well first because of said limits of the TGC... :rolleyes: UTV vs the Tank you are going to a missile with shorter reach than the long range heavy models. The Tank has the weight to pack more sensors and detection system as would IFV and APC’s as long as we are not talking some third world relic.
This isn’t t the age of operation Barbarossa anymore, where T34 and Tigers would have dozens of shells pinging off the hulls well the crew tries to find their attacker.
The Blast of firing is going to expose the shooter the second they fire. Depending on seeker a laser will likely set off a laser detection system and with the rise of APS the first shot has to make the kill If you are going against armor. depending on cover and tactics used, sensors to counter effects may very. My argument has remained though that this is not a open and shut case with UTV’s packing missiles as the winner. Even a heavy ATGM may not be enough against a modern MBT or heavy IFV/APC.
This whole argument started with the assertion that ATGM have more range. The estimation was then backed by pointing to the 120mm Smoothbore gun listed for the German shell. My counter is that they can but more likely it’s equal to. Equal to as that ranging for the tank shell is the general effective range listing where a good crew may get more from the weapons system. For the ATGM side that range listing is based on a heavier ATGM and in optimum conditions Minimal maneuvering. As change those up and start banking about and the missile will run out of fuel. The weight limits of the UTV as you point out make the choice of missile and the types of sensors. Meaning a man portable model usually a middle weight meaning a missile more likely to be 1.5 km to 3 km range.
Conditions in the field tank being squared off against. In this case based off the shell listed a modern NATO type.
Moving that argument to a APC/IFV the situation changes but if you have a modern type again. It’s a question of making that first shot count because of you miss those class often have there own ATGM. Either from the main armament or infantry.
A bunker is a third situation type where in it’s not mobile and frankly waiting to be blown apart. Although a artillery piece or RPG would likely be cheaper.
Interesting points - perhaps one thing to keep in mind is this type of highly mobile system with anti-tank/AIFV capability further complicates the highly dynamic nature of modern warfare. One could image attacks from these systems from the rear or side of existing battle formations and/or would give airborne troops a highly mobile and quickly redeployable anti-tank option rather than static antitank teams dug in into fixed emplacements (which are increasingly vulnerable to counter attack).
The Syrian conflict is a good example of the impact and effectiveness of existing antitank systems such as the TOW, HJ-8A and Kornet etc can have on armoured formations by restricting their capacity to operate freely and holding them at risk when operated by small teams using well coordinated attacks.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
You make it sound like a earth changing system yet that concept has been around for decades. Recoilless system mounted on Jeeps.
 

Top