AT Guns

[Raellus]

I find it odd that the Soviet and WARPACT armies developed and deployed conventional anti-tank guns while NATO did not. I find it especially odd since Soviet-bloc armies were built for offense while NATO was preparing to fight largely defensively (on the ground, at least).

Why didn't NATO invest in an AT gun? I figure that it's due to the West's love affair with hi-tech weapons. It seems like they made a conscious decision to go the missile route and forego the more old fashioned gun. On a more practical note, I figure that a large caliber AT gun (in keeping with NATO tank guns, 105mm minimum, 120mm max) would need a larger crew than, say, a TOW launcher, and it would probably need a prime mover more powerful than a Humvee. AT guns are also larger and harder to conceal than most missile systems.

On the pro side, AT guns have a relatively high rate of fire (around 10 rounds per minute) and kinetic energy weapons (ie standard AP rounds) have a better tank kill ratio than HEAT rounds, especially against newer types or types fitted with ERA. Most ATGMs take quite a while to reload. For example, the M113 ITV can fire two TOWs but then takes several minutes to reload.

In many ways, the Soviets ushered in the age of ATGMs with the AT-2 Sagger. They still kept the AT gun, though.

Any other reasons the west skipped on the AT gun? Any significant NATO AT gun systems I might me missing here.

[kato13]

This seems reasonable


The direct-fire anti-tank [AT] gun was once thought, again, to be an anachronism, dead as the proverbial dodo. Until relatively recently, was still a TO&E item for the Russian motorized rifle division. An entire battalion of eighteen T-12 guns [100 mm] was a standard item within each Soviet/Russian division.

Long-range, direct-fire anti-tank “artillery� used to counter enemy tank assault!

Anti-tank guns available to the Russian divisional combat commander. To be used in the role of:

* Guarding the "shoulders" of a breakthrough while the division is on THE OFFENSIVE!

* Guarding that avenue of approach into the divisional area of operations felt to be most vulnerable from enemy attack - - while on THE DEFENSIVE!

With regard to the wheeled version of the AT gun, NOT self-propelled, let us refresh our memory and recall that particular chapter from the Suvorov work, “Inside the Red Army� entitled, "Why are Anti-tank Guns not Self-propelled?"

"1. A towed anti-tank gun is many times easier to manufacture and to use than one that is self-propelled."

"2. A towed gun has a very low silhouette, at least half that of a tank."

"3. Anti-tank guns are used in two situations. In defense, when the enemy has broken-through, is advancing fast and must be stopped at any price. And in an offensive when one's own troops have broken through and are advancing rapidly, and the enemy tries to cut through the spearhead at its base, with a flank attack."


http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/sprut.html



I think the disposable Nature of the Soviet soldier explains why NATO abandoned guns. ATGMs can shoot and scoot quite a bit better. That option while more expensive does offer more survivability.

[copeab]

Can I assume you are excluding recoilless rifles like the 106mm M40A1 and 120mm WOMBAT because they were out of NATO service by 1996?

[Raellus]

Can I assume you are excluding recoilless rifles like the 106mm M40A1 and 120mm WOMBAT because they were out of NATO service by 1996?

Correct. IIRC, the U.S. also fielded a tracked 90mm AT gun, designed for support of airborne forces, back in the '50s and early '60s. It was replaced by the Sheridan. The West Germans also had a tracked 90mm AT gun which was fielded through most of the '80s, I believe. But, as you noted, most, if not all, of these systems were out of circulation by '96. The Soviets, on the other hand, had developed a 125mm AT gun to start replacing the 100mm Rapira during the late eighties.

Another track taken by the Soviets which NATO did not follow is the idea of the gun-launched AT missile. I guess the rationale behind this weapon was to give their tanks and AT guns the ability to engage NATO tanks first, beyond their maximum effective gun range.

[Abbott Shaull]

When one looks at the Soviet/Russia defensive postures. The AT-Gun would be forward of their Tank formation in the defensive belts. Thus freeing the Tank Regiment of MRD to be a mobile reserve.

On the offensive they could be used to guard flank freeing up assets that could be poured in to exploit other situation on the battle field of the Division.

[copeab]

Another track taken by the Soviets which NATO did not follow is the idea of the gun-launched AT missile. I guess the rationale behind this weapon was to give their tanks and AT guns the ability to engage NATO tanks first, beyond their maximum effective gun range.

This us likely because of the terrible experience the US had with the 152mm gun/launcher in the Sheridan and M60A2. Fire the gun and you knock the missile guidance out of alignment, fire the missile and you badly foul the barrel for firing the gun.

[Legbreaker]

I think the greatest problem with the 152mm gun is it was just too damn big! The amount of propellant required to push a 152mm projectile is always going to cause problems with a small, light vehicle such as the Sheridan was designed to be.
If they'd stuck with around 100mm they might have avoided some of those problems with recoil, however that (obviously) requires a reduction in warhead diameter and coresponding reduction in penetration performance.
Overall though, it was a system too far ahead of it's time - great in concept, but the technology of the day just wasn't up to scratch.

[Ramjam]

The main reason the Russians used the gun-launched AT missile is that their chance of hitting a target at long range were so small that NATO tank gunners had such a huge advantage over them and they need something to try to level the playing field.

What is strange is the Russians kept on going with the gun-launched AT missile system after close to 30 years instead on trying to up-grade their tank sights for their main guns.

[rcaf_777]

I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.

On other not I’m an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and I’m sure if you under fire it would less.

[Mohoender]

I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.

On other not I’m an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and I’m sure if you under fire it would less.

I can see several good reasons. I'm not sure about this but I would expect AT gun round to be easier to manufacture than HOT, TOW, SS-4 Spandrell... AT round would be in short supply but missiles would have become a memory. RPG and carl gustav rounds will certainly be still available but I don't see how the US army would get replacement for their disposable M-72 (I'll rather be in the Marines).

Moreover, you need less training to fire an AT gun than to use a guided missile (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong). Again RPG and Carl Gustav are a different matter. In addition, an AT gun needs less maintenance.

Then, AT guns are great on well prepared defensive position and they can be used at much longer range or for other purpose such as regular artillery. In a cantonment organization they have their place. By the way trained AT gun crew in WWII were known to fire 4-6 round in a minute. I remember seeing a report on an M1 Abrams disabled (not destroyed) by an S-60 57mm gun used in AT role at Baghdad (2003).

[Abbott Shaull]

I can see several good reasons. I'm not sure about this but I would expect AT gun round to be easier to manufacture than HOT, TOW, SS-4 Spandrell... AT round would be in short supply but missiles would have become a memory. RPG and carl gustav rounds will certainly be still available but I don't see how the US army would get replacement for their disposable M-72 (I'll rather be in the Marines).

Moreover, you need less training to fire an AT gun than to use a guided missile (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong). Again RPG and Carl Gustav are a different matter. In addition, an AT gun needs less maintenance.

Then, AT guns are great on well prepared defensive position and they can be used at much longer range or for other purpose such as regular artillery. In a cantonment organization they have their place. By the way trained AT gun crew in WWII were known to fire 4-6 round in a minute. I remember seeing a report on an M1 Abrams disabled (not destroyed) by an S-60 57mm gun used in AT role at Baghdad (2003).
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Soviets realize that they will never be able to keep up with AT missiles demands in a fighting war. Everyone does realize that most Infantrymen are too willing to use LAWs which were compact and light compared to such missiles as the Dragon, on any obstacle that needs to removed in their way. In Vietnam more than a few were used as bunker busters.

Where as the AT guns are basically the same guns that they had been in their tanks. So in theory they would get resupplied.

Yes, even the Soviet/Russia RPG-7/9s have been known to make M1 disabled for all practical purposes. Once you take away a Tanks ability to move, they are that much less of threat. Just a immobile pillbox with 4 soldiers who know all to well sitting ducks.

[Raellus]

The main reason the Russians used the gun-launched AT missile is that their chance of hitting a target at long range were so small that NATO tank gunners had such a huge advantage over them and they need something to try to level the playing field.


Although I don't disagree that by most accounts NATO tank gunnery was superior, I believe the rationale behind the Soviet's gun-launched missile is that it can flat-out outrange tank guns, giving the user, in theory, a first shot/kill ability. I think that the Soviets also intended for the missile to have a secondary role- anti-helicopter weapon.

I'm not a fan, per se, but it would be nice to have the missile option.

[Raellus]

I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.

On other not I’m an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and I’m sure if you under fire it would less.

Light, man-portable AT systems (pre-Javelin/Tankbreaker), especially unguided ones like the LAW, have limited range and relatively modest armor penetration capabilities, especially against newer composite and reactive armors. An M-72 LAW might be able to take out a T-55, but its not likely to do much to a T-72 with ERA (apart from a mobility kill).

As for reload times, in combat, with people shooting at you, do you move faster or slower? It seems that rushing it would be a recipe for error.

[copeab]

Where as the AT guns are basically the same guns that they had been in their tanks. So in theory they would get resupplied.


I wonder how many of the wrecked tanks (and there are plenty in T2K) have had their guns pulled and installed as either a static defensive weapon or with an improvised towed carriage. Of course, an M256 is going to have a big kick and will be a lot for it's crew to manhandle ...

[copeab]

Light, man-portable AT systems (pre-Javelin/Tankbreaker), especially unguided ones like the LAW, have limited range and relatively modest armor penetration capabilities, especially against newer composite and reactive armors. An M-72 LAW might be able to take out a T-55, but its not likely to do much to a T-72 with ERA (apart from a mobility kill).


Although in 2000 I think you are more likely to face a T-55 than a T-72.

[pmulcahy11b]

I would think that the biggest reason armies might go back to AT guns is that the ammunition is easier to make than trying to manufacture an ATGM missile. I don't know that anyone in the world in T2K would be able to make even a first-generation ATGM missile (like an AT-1 Swatter or a Bantam). Making a round for an AT gun may be quite hard, but that's better than virtually impossible.

[Benjamin]

There is an excellent article in Jane's Military Review, 1987 (Sixth Year of Issue), ed. Ian V. Hogg. Entitled A Return to the Gun? by Owen Carrow, it chronicles the numerous efforts to develop light direct-fire guns during the mid-1980s. The article focuses on western designs such as the Austrian Noricum N105 which was a towed L7 105mm tank gun. One of the more interesting guns described was a 75mm weapon based on the ARES 75mm canon, as seen on the LAV-75, which could be tele-operated. There were other guns ranging from a Belgian 25mm canon to a French 90mm anti-tank gun and a 60mm Israeli weapon.

Any of these designs could be thrown into the Twilight War with little modification. It's likely that if the Soviets had remained a viable threat at least some of these weapons would have seen wide spread use. As has been said earlier ammo for these weapons would be relatively easy to manufacture and some of these weapons could even be refitted to operate almost automatically. Combined with minefields and artillery fire they could prove to be vital in defensive operations in Southern Germany.

Benjamin

[pmulcahy11b]

The US Marines are still using stand-alone howitzers. With the size of their heavy-lift helicopter force, they're just easier to move around that way.

[Webstral]

Towed AT systems have some important drawbacks vis-a-vis SACLOS ATGM. The first is that the unarmored AT system leaves its operators vulnerable to suppressive artillery fire. ATGM crews are somewhat less vulnerable because they (and their weapon) can get under cover quickly ande more easily than an AT gun crew and their weapon can. The second is that the trajectory of the ATGM can be corrected in-flight. Against the fast-moving tanks of the modern battlefield, this ability is a deal-maker. In order to compensate for the high mobility of the enemy AFV, an AT gun probably would require some sort of targeting system. Such a system probably would be expensive and would in turn serve to justify turning a towed AT gun into an SP AT gun. The third is that it is much easier to make a TOW crew mobile while protecting them against shell fragments and small arms than is the case with an AT gun. ATGM crews have more flexibility than AT gun crews in that a TOW team can be loaded into a very modest vehicle and stay in the fight. The same is not true of the AT gun.

In order to make the AT gun fit with the highly mobile Western concept of war, the gun would have to be self-propelled for the same reasons that the artillery of mechanized formations is self-propelled and ATGM-equipped anti-tank vehicles are self-propelled. A self-propelled AT gun is a light tank or tank destroyer, depending on how one wants to use the label.

Mind, I'm not saying there isn't a place for an AT gun in the Western arsenals. Sited in a properly prepared fighting position, an AT gun of suitable caliber and range could do good service when covering a minefield or other obstacle with direct fire. I strongly suspect that the relative flexibility of the ATGM and the understandable desire of armies to standardize as much as possible led to the adoption of the ATGM over the AT gun. Still, by 2000 captured 100mm AT guns would be prized additions to NATO defenses.

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

ATGM crews are somewhat less vulnerable because they (and their weapon) can get under cover quickly ande more easily than an AT gun crew and their weapon can.
Yes, the ATGM weapon system itself is usually smaller and easier to get under cover, but a hole is a hole - crew of either system can get in as easily as each other provided they don't mind leaving the gun exposed.
A properly prepared postion negates this issue and the AT gun may even be the better weapon from a prepared defensive - no backblast to worry about!
The second is that the trajectory of the ATGM can be corrected in-flight. Against the fast-moving tanks of the modern battlefield, this ability is a deal-maker.
So why aren't tanks armed with missiles then? A gun projectile travels MUCH faster than a missile, much faster than a tank can move - don't see too many 40+ tonne monsters dodging an incoming AP or HEAT round...
The ATGM usually has a significant firing signature - backblast isn't something you can hide very easily (although some rare systems are designed to minimise it as much as possible, the Armbrust being one).
In order to compensate for the high mobility of the enemy AFV, an AT gun probably would require some sort of targeting system.
Why? As stated above, tanks don't dodge supersonic projectiles very well. As long as the gunner knows what they're doing and leads the target, there shouldn't be any need for high tech electronic sighting systems, although they would certainly reduce the burden on the crew.
Such a system probably would be expensive and would in turn serve to justify turning a towed AT gun into an SP AT gun.
Negating the very idea of a cheap defensive weapon system.
The third is that it is much easier to make a TOW crew mobile while protecting them against shell fragments and small arms than is the case with an AT gun. ATGM crews have more flexibility than AT gun crews in that a TOW team can be loaded into a very modest vehicle and stay in the fight. The same is not true of the AT gun.
But mobility is not the role of the AT gun. They are intended for a prepared defensive position protecting the flanks and shoulders of the attack, and in Soviet doctrine, are a divisional asset (or at least brigade).
In order to make the AT gun fit with the highly mobile Western concept of war...
As you state, it doesn't fit the Western concept all that well. On the other hand, the Soviet model makes great use of them, even though they've primarily an offensive mindset.

[pmulcahy11b]

Well, IRL, the AT gun has a lot of drawbacks, but it's worst drawback is the lack of mobility. Modern conventional warfare (as opposed to counterinsurgent warfare as we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan -- think the original invasion of Iraq or Desert Storm) is fluid and fast moving; an AT-gun crew has to be sort of close to get any kind of penetration and accuracy out of its rounds, and they can be quickly overwhelmed by attacking vehicles, helicopters, and aircraft.

But in a T2K world, the aircraft and helicopters are absent, there are few vehicles, and most troops are foot or horse-mobile. The technology to build new ATGM missiles and maintain CLUs is virtually nonexistent. The AT gun would, in a T2K world, become much more important.

[Webstral]

It's true that an AT gun lacks the distinctive firing signature of the ATGM. It’s not true that there is no muzzle flash. (I realize you didn’t say so, but I feel it worthwhile to point out that we’re not talking about a choice between a highly revealing weapon and a stealthy weapon. A large caliber gun firing near the surface of the earth will reveal itself.) Also, it’s a lot easier to prepare a fighting position for a TOW team than it is for a large-caliber gun. Neither crew can operate their weapon completely under cover, but given comparable amounts of man hours and equipment to prepare a fighting position, the TOW has significantly lesser requirements.

For better or for worse, the Western powers decided that on a fast-moving battlefield on which they would be on the defensive against much superior numbers of Soviet tanks, time and manpower would be commodities in short supply. As Paul pointed out, mobility becomes an issue. Compounding the problem are issues like crew survivability, the length of time required to prepare a proper fighting position, the number of shots on can expect to fire from the time the enemy tanks enter the defenders’ effective range, the percentage of shots one can expect to hit, and the percentage of hits one can expect to cause a kill.

Compared to an AT gun, a TOW crew can be put in place by an APC, light wheeled vehicle, light helicopter, or just about any form of transport with a fair amount of ease. An AT gun requires a prime mover of some sort to have any sort of tactical mobility. Either the AT gun has a dedicated prime mover, the cost of which begs the question of why the gun wasn’t simply mounted on a light armored chassis and turned into an assault gun or tank destroyer, or the AT gun relies on a mover which is tasked between a number of guns. If the AT gun needs to be moved while the prime mover is moving another gun (perhaps with another unit), the gun loses a great deal of its utility. The TOW team at least can move their system some distance through restrictive terrain.

The TOW team has only a fraction of the reloads normally moved with the AT gun. Ammunition supply is one of the biggest drawbacks of the ATGM vis-ÃÂ*-vis the AT gun. However, it is possible at least to move a TOW team with a handful of reloads into a new position far more easily than it would be to move an AT gun with a similar number of rounds.

TOW can be operated by two men, although I wouldn’t care to be one of them lugging it long distances. AT guns require larger crews. Crews cost money. Although the cost of the crew is not the only consideration in the West (note that the US hasn’t adopted an autoloader for the M1 series, despite the potential cost savings), the number of crew a system requires certainly does go into the equation.

An AT gun has a dramatically higher rate of fire than TOW. Theoretically, the most common Soviet-manufactured AT guns can fire 14 rounds per minute. Realistically, the number is between 6 and 10. Still, this is a big advantage over TOW, which can manage 2-4 rounds depending on range, etc.

TOW has a range of over 3500 meters. Soviet AT guns don’t have that kind of range. When comparing these two systems as defensive weapons, range is a crucial factor. For one thing, a TOW crew can start engaging a Soviet attacker long before that attacker can engage the TOW crew. Ergo, although the AT gun has a much greater rate of fire, the TOW team has a much longer opportunity to engage the attacking tanks. More importantly, if the TOW is defending an obstacle, it can engage the enemy tanks with relative impunity (provided the TOW team is well-sited).

Preparing a fighting position for a TOW team is much easier than preparing a fighting position for an AT gun and crew. On the battlefield of North Central Europe, time and manpower were expected to be of the essence.

Killing power also matters. An AT gun is essentially a dismounted tank main gun. A 115mm gun simply lacks the killing power of even the early models of TOW. Scoring any hit on an enemy tank is better than scoring no hit. Any hit can cause damage to systems the crew would rather have operational. But a hit that does not result in armor penetration is not of much utility. All things being equal, TOW has better killing power than even the largest-caliber AT gun in use today.

Taken together, the relative advantages of ATGM like TOW (or HOT) were seen to outweigh the advantages of the AT gun for the war NATO expected to fight in Europe. Due to the Soviet numerical superiority, it was deemed critical to be able to shift anti-tank systems rapidly to counter developing threats. TOW (and HOT and Milan) promised this better than any towed AT system. Due to the highly mechanized nature of the Soviet attack, it was deemed necessary to use long-range anti-tank systems operating from difficult terrain (such as wooded hills or built-up areas along an MSR). Although a towed AT gun can be used this way, a TOW team is more responsive and offers more options in a more timely fashion. Air mobility was another deciding factor. Any utility helicopter can transport a TOW crew who can in turn expect to kill a T-72 at long range from wherever they set up. The same cannot be (completely) said of an AT gun and crew. Also, the development of FASCAM further supported the high degree of mobility that could be imparted to the TOW crew. A FASCAM minefield can be laid literally in minutes. A handful of TOW teams can be moved in to defend the minefield from beyond the main gun range of the Soviets the minefield was established to canalize or block. If necessary, these teams can be dug in fairly easily to give them some protection against the weight of Soviet artillery. A TOW team can take its weapon under cover during the enemy’s preparatory bombardment, then emerge when it comes time to fire. The same amount of survivability effort will not yield comparable results with an AT gun and crew. Time and manpower being of the essence, NATO opted for weapons that were highly mobile, possessed of long range, and possessed of a high degree of accuracy and killing power. An AT gun that possesses all of these qualities is not an AT gun—it’s a light tank, tank destroyer, or assault gun.

In answer to your question about why tanks aren’t armed with missiles, Legbreaker, some tanks indeed are armed with missiles. The problem is that no one has worked out the bugs of combining a missile launcher with a main tank gun, although the Russians have been working on it diligently. They may yet come up with a solution.

“Why? As stated above, tanks don't dodge supersonic projectiles very well. As long as the gunner knows what they're doing and leads the target, there shouldn't be any need for high tech electronic sighting systems, although they would certainly reduce the burden on the crew.”

If this were anything like as easily done as said, there would be no need for computers in the turrets of main battle tanks. Unfortunately, very few crews can engage fast-moving tanks at ranges of 3000+ meters using only optical sights. By referring to fast-moving tanks, I’m not suggesting that the tanks actually dodge incoming rounds. I’m suggesting that hitting a moving target is difficult. If anybody could do it, SACLOS and the targeting systems of Western tanks never would have been invented.

As far as the utility of an AT gun goes, I think it would have a value on a different battlefield than the one NATO anticipated for Germany. Properly sited and dug-in, an AT gun can be a superb system. In WW2, the exchange rate of tanks to AT guns sometimes was as high as 6-to-1 in favor of the AT guns. However, increasing numbers of tanks (and their supporting fighting vehicles) and the firepower, mobility, and survivability of tanks have changed the equation. I still believe AT guns have their uses, but they are out of their element on a fast-moving battlefield.

One more note: I do believe the Soviets made extensive use of AT guns in Poland in 1997. They had several months to prepare obstacles and fighting positions. Under these conditions, AT guns almost certainly took a fearful toll of NATO IFV and APC, as well as poorly-handled or unlucky MBT.


Webstral

[pmulcahy11b]

So why aren't tanks armed with missiles then? A gun projectile travels MUCH faster than a missile, much faster than a tank can move - don't see too many 40+ tonne monsters dodging an incoming AP or HEAT round...

Just to be contrary, a lot of Russian-designed tanks do in fact fire ATGMs -- but that's primarily because accuracy with their conventional main gun rounds at long ranges suck.

[kato13]

Just to be contrary, a lot of Russian-designed tanks do in fact fire ATGMs -- but that's primarily because accuracy with their conventional main gun rounds at long ranges suck.

I don't think that was Web's quote He got overloaded with multiple quotes from Leg I think. One of the few weaknesses in this forum system, but I have not seen a better way to do it.

[Legbreaker]

True, however I don't believe missiles are their main ammunition, just something reserved for particularly tough (or long range) targets.
Ordinary AFVs such as APCs, IFVs, recce vehicles and light tanks simply wouldn't require the power of a missile to destroy - a much cheaper HEAT or AP round should usually be sufficient.

[Targan]

I wonder how many of the wrecked tanks (and there are plenty in T2K) have had their guns pulled and installed as either a static defensive weapon or with an improvised towed carriage. Of course, an M256 is going to have a big kick and will be a lot for it's crew to manhandle ...
In my campaign the PCs' group found a fortified village that had bolted an Apache gunship's chain gun to the platform of a 'cherry picker' and supplied it with power from a generator. They would raise the platform from behind their 'town wall' in the event of a maurauder attack. They had been helped in this task by the badly injured pilot of an Apache who had survived for four or five months after the crash and had wanted to repay the kindness of the townsfolk by helping them to create a deterrant weapon system.

[Legbreaker]

Good idea that. I'm a little dubious that the pilot might actually know enough of the mechanics to be of much help though - my understanding is that it's not a topic covered during pilot training....

With regard to stripping the weapon from the tank (or other AFV) turret, I'd be inclined to leave it in if possible and take advantage of the turret armour. Slap it on a concrete box, add a bit of power (or at worst hand crank) and you've got yourself a VERY scary looking pillbox.

[Mohoender]

I have read a lot of interesting point in all your posts but I wanted to point out a few points in the defense of the AT gun (in a T2K setting).

A well concealed AT gun is not that easy to spot especially when you don't have all these nice technological gears. And you won't have that much of them in T2K. During WW2 AT crew had been known to destroy tanks at point blank (sometimes less than 50 meters away).

Yes they lack mobility but the twilight war in 2000 has nothing in common with Iraq or Afghanistan and mobility (except for limited mobile offensive) is only memory.

In addition, they have proved to be very efficient on several occasions (Tobruk, Kursk...). To get back on Iraq, I have the impression that Bassora resisted for some times at the beginning of the conflict, using static positions. Moreover, we don't know what would have happened if the Iraqi units had defended Baghdad. Hopefully, Saddam had been among the worse military leaders of the post WW2 era (and that doesn't take anything out of the US troops qualities).

Air power is a great threat to AT gun but that won't be an issue anymore.

I love the insight from all of those among you who have a military experience as you changed many of my views and improved my understanding but I have sometimes the feeling that you forget one point about T2K: You are on your own!!

You have not been on your own for hours or days but for weeks or even month. Your supply lines are long gone, your technological stuffs are falling appart, your vehicles are damaged and already sustained several hits, you lived of the land and every bullet count (not to talk about an RPG round).

IMO the twilight war compare more to the Russian revolution or Chinese revolution (may be American Indian wars) than to any other modern conflict (you just have a number of slightly more modern equipments). Your unit has been reorganized to live off the land and the opponents is making the best use he can of its own equipments. Sure AT guns lack mobility but you don't have the mobility to turn that position anyway. As a result, a single AT gun in a well prepared position can definitely stop you (IMO of course). At least, it will slow you for a long time and it has a good chance to destroy your last survivng M1 Abrams (which is in bad shape already).

[Raellus]

Nice post, Web.

Clearly, the ATGM won out over the AT gun in NATO circles for good reason. Apart from rate of fire, the AT gun has no discernable advantages over the ATGM at the outset of the Twilight War.

As Mo and Paul and others have pointed out, though, after the TDM, when the hi-tech supply tap has been shut off to most armies in the field, a conventional AT gun firing standard tank gun ammo is going to become a much more valuable commodity. ATGM rounds are going to become scarce fast with unguided AT rounds close behind. Tank rounds would become scarce too but, as Paul mentioned, armies would stand a much better chance of being able to manufacture tank rounds after the TDM than they would ATGMs.

On a side note, I've always wondered how a TOW (or Milan or whatever) crew would be able to operate their systems effectively during a full-scale attack. Accurate artillery fire, especially, would be a serious threat to the crew, if not an insurmountable distraction as they attempt to hold the missile on target for the few long seconds between firing and impact. Shrapnel and blast from artillery (especially airburst rounds) could also cut guidance wires. I don't know, but trying to imagine a crew under fire trying to hit a moving Soviet tank (especially firing back) coming at them across a smoke-filled battlefield... it just seems incredibly difficult. That said, I don't know if things would be much better for an AT gun crew under the same battlefield conditions.

[pmulcahy11b]

On a side note, I've always wondered how a TOW (or Milan or whatever) crew would be able to operate their systems effectively during a full-scale attack. Accurate artillery fire, especially, would be a serious threat to the crew, if not an insurmountable distraction as they attempt to hold the missile on target for the few long seconds between firing and impact. Shrapnel and blast from artillery (especially airburst rounds) could also cut guidance wires. I don't know, but trying to imagine a crew under fire trying to hit a moving Soviet tank (especially firing back) coming at them across a smoke-filled battlefield... it just seems incredibly difficult. That said, I don't know if things would be much better for an AT gun crew under the same battlefield conditions.

Well, you need to be patient and lucky...

[Mohoender]

Well, you need to be patient and lucky...

I never checked to know if that was legend or truth but Napoleon I when thinking about giving a command to someone was supposed to always ask the same thing:
" Is he lucky?":D

[Webstral]

I have read a lot of interesting point in all your posts but I wanted to point out a few points in the defense of the AT gun (in a T2K setting)....

IMO the twilight war compare more to the Russian revolution or Chinese revolution (may be American Indian wars) than to any other modern conflict (you just have a number of slightly more modern equipments). Your unit has been reorganized to live off the land and the opponents is making the best use he can of its own equipments. Sure AT guns lack mobility but you don't have the mobility to turn that position anyway. As a result, a single AT gun in a well prepared position can definitely stop you (IMO of course). At least, it will slow you for a long time and it has a good chance to destroy your last survivng M1 Abrams (which is in bad shape already).

Bear in mind the context of the original post, Mo. The author wants to explore the fact that by the 1980's NATO had virually eliminated the AT gun from its collective arsenal, while the Pact forces maintained significant numbers of them. If you re-read the original post, the author doesn't even address AT guns in Twilight: 2000, other than to imply that the pre-war arsenals are the foundation of the post-Exchange arsenals.

That much said, I agree heartily with most of what you have written in defense of the AT gun in the Y2k setting. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, context matters. In the context of North Central Europe of 1999 or 2000, the AT gun has almost overwhelming advantages over the ATGM--many of which you have named. I'll offer a couple more:

Following the 1998 campaign season in Germany, Austria, and Czechoslovakia, the fighting winds down to a virtual standstill. Fuel shortages and lack of spare parts dramatically reduce the ability of both sides to conduct a mobile defense. By the same token, fuel shortages and lack of spare parts dramatically reduce the need for a mobile defense. Both sides now have the luxury of time to site their guns and prepare optimal defensive positions. Although there will be great demands on manpower, it still should be possible to create camouflaged firing positions for the AT guns. Depending on the initiative of the local commanders and the resources available, it should be entirely plausible for the AT guns to enjoy overhead protection, a ready supply of ammunition under cover, and perhaps even an alternate firing position or two. Additionally, it’s entirely reasonable to expect that cantonments will have extensive obstacle belts covered by AT guns, preregistered artillery and mortar zones, and machine guns firing from fixed and camouflaged firing positions. Now we find the AT gun coming into its own. Woe betide the IFV that ventures onto this battlefield.

At this point, the relative ease of manufacture of the AT gun ammunition versus the ATGM becomes a commandingly decisive factor. ATGM will still be in use, to whatever degree they are still available.

NATO will have a substantial body of AT guns available at this point, having captured Pact materiel during the offensives across East Germany, Poland, and western Czechoslovakia. The value of the AT gun in static defenses of great depth will have become abundantly clear during the operation in Poland. (No doubt, the PLA will have tried to pass on their wisdom following their own defensive triumph in Manchuria in 1996. No doubt, the West will fail to take note.) It might even be possible that NATO will see fit to protect its southern flank in (former) East Germany with extensive obstacle belts and captured AT guns. Of course, I could be giving NATO too much credit.

All of this leads me to ask an uncomfortable question: is the set-up for “Escape from Kalisz” even plausible? 5th ID jumps off from its positions in northwestern Poland for a cavalry raid into central Poland. Where are the static defenses? The remnants of the defenses constructed in 1997 should be everywhere. These defenses should have been enhanced between 1998 and 2000. What’s the story?

I should clarify what I mean by static defenses. Minefields backed by machine guns, artillery, and AT guns are at the heart of such defenses. These kinds of minefields are not FASCAM. I’m talking complex minefields with a mix of anti-tank and anti-personnel mines. Covering them would be whatever direct fire and indirect fire weapons were available. Any unit staying in one place for any length of time will improve on the defenses already in place. Bunkers will be constructed of whatever materials are available and sited so that they can cover their obstacles with overlapping fields of fire. Given time, communication trenches will be constructed, covered, and concealed. The trenches will be made at least semi-permanent by having their walls reinforced with wood. The floor of the trenches might have a raised portion to keep soldiers out of the mud during the rainy season. Wire commo will be laid. Backup communications will be established. Command posts will be dug in and fortified. All of this is very low-tech and requires little in the way of electronics or sophisticated tools. If you have the time, some shovels and axes, and the manpower, you can create a very extensive and formidable set of earthworks. (This is me going back to my 12B roots) Time and manpower can be substituted for each other.

Other types of obstacles we should expect to find used extensively in Poland in 2000 include wire obstacles, which are often combined with minefields, and water obstacles. Abatis probably have been used as much as they can be used back in 1997. By 1998, the roads probably have been cleared of all of those downed trees. Crib-style obstacles probably have been used, but they don’t wear well. If I were planning defensive obstacles in post-Exchange Europe (or anywhere, really), I wouldn’t use many crib-style devices. They have their uses, but the real money lies in minefields, wire obstacles, and water obstacles—preferably in combination.

So where are these kinds of defenses when 5th ID jumps off from its starting point?


Webstral

[Raellus]

So where are these kinds of defenses when 5th ID jumps off from its starting point?


Good question. I think the answer has mostly to do with troop density. Given the massive casualties sustained by all sides by 2000, there simply aren't enough warm bodies anymore to man anything approaching a continuous front. This development, in part, explains the rise of the cantonment system. Only a few food producing areas and surviving manufacturing centers are worth devoting significant manpower to defending actively. Cantonments would be heavily fortified in the manner which you described. However, there would be large, relatively unmanned gaps between cantonments. These gaps are mostly likely what the 5th ID passed through on its "raid" deep into PACT territory.

Such gaps may have been covered by mines, but without adequate infantry to cover those minefields, they would be fairly easy to traverse. I'm sure that many surviving tanks c.2000 would be equiped with mine rollers or plows or fitted with ad hoc devices designed to do the same thing (I'm thinking along the lines of the Cullen hedgerow cutters of the WWII Normandy campaign). Most gaps would be screened by picket forces or covered by routine patrols but these forces would be tasked primarily with providing warning of enemy offensive operations and perhaps delaying attacking forces while mobile reserves are rushed to the scene.

Anyhow, certain valuable areas would have extensive active defensive works while other areas would be largely undefended or have only passive defenses. I'm sure that there would be miles and miles of old, abandoned trench systems and other defensive works. But without troops there maintaining them, they would be little more than speed bumps.

In a nutshell, there just aren't enough troops to man and defend the sorts of trench systems that were the hallmark of WWI.

[Legbreaker]

I agree that given the choice, the ATGM is certainly the better option.
However, as the war dragged on and missiles became scarce (not to mentionteh delicate electronics of the various launchers becomeing damaged), the gun is going to retake prominance as the primary AT weapon.

Something else to keep in mind is that engaging targets at a weapon systems theoretical maximum range is nearly never going to happen. The shorter the range, the more likely a hit will be scored, and with a kinetic penetrator (AP rounds) the longer the range, the lesser the penetration.

Even though a TOW (for example, but could use any of the guided systems) had a range of several miles, missiles are fairly slow. During the flight, the operator must maintain a line of sight on the target, all the while hoping the enemy don't respond in kind with HE and machineguns. If the missile has bee fired in less than ideal terrain (rolling hills), there is a chance that the target might even disappear from normal movement before the missile gets close.

AT weapons of any type benefit from being sited close to the target area.

Once again, I'm all for missiles as a first choice, but once supplies begin to dry up and mobility becomes less of a factor, give me the gun.

[kato13]

Something else to keep in mind is that engaging targets at a weapon systems theoretical maximum range is nearly never going to happen. The shorter the range, the more likely a hit will be scored, and with a kinetic penetrator (AP rounds) the longer the range, the lesser the penetration.

Also remember that fin-stabilized rounds are very vulnerable to winds. NATO's advantage in ballistic computers made a ton of difference at longer ranges.

[Legbreaker]

Something to keep in mind is that minefields are essentially useless unless covered by fire - ie somebody with a weapon is watching over them.
An unguarded minefield is little more than a rather dangerous mine storage area for the enemy as was shown in Vietnam when a (very) large minefield laid by western armies (not sure if it was US or Aus). A few short months later after it had been handed over to the ARVN, there was no minefield - the ARVN had failed to guard it and the VC lifted the whole thing for their own use!
The vast majority of mines encountered for the remainder of the war were from this field.

[Targan]

Something to keep in mind is that minefields are essentially useless unless covered by fire - ie somebody with a weapon is watching over them.
An unguarded minefield is little more than a rather dangerous mine storage area for the enemy as was shown in Vietnam when a (very) large minefield laid by western armies (not sure if it was US or Aus). A few short months later after it had been handed over to the ARVN, there was no minefield - the ARVN had failed to guard it and the VC lifted the whole thing for their own use!
The vast majority of mines encountered for the remainder of the war were from this field.
That was us, in Phuoc Tuy Province. It took a couple of years but the VC ended up with tens of thousands of our mines because we and our allies failed to keep a manned watch over a long, narrow mine field laid south of Nui Dat. And the thing that frustrates me the most about that is that the last Australian soldier to die in the Vietnam War was killed by one of our own mines which had been stolen, quite possibly from the same minefield.

[Legbreaker]

I served with one of the victims of that minefield - Warrant Officer Lees (Corporal at the time). Lost half a foot, terrible wounds up the legs and lost a testicle to an M16. Still managed to have another son afterward though (served with him too).
http://www.5rar.asn.au/narrative/mines.htm
He served two tours - not sure if that was the first or second.

[Targan]

I served with one of the victims of that minefield - Warrant Officer Lees (Corporal at the time). Lost half a foot, terrible wounds up the legs and lost a testicle to an M16. Still managed to have another son afterward though (served with him too).
http://www.5rar.asn.au/narrative/mines.htm
He served two tours - not sure if that was the first or second.
Well respect to him. I'm guessing you are saying he was a corporal when he was injured by the mine? All the Warrant Officers I've ever met were truly imposing men.

[Legbreaker]

Yes, Cpl at the time. Great man and a great drinker too. Spent many a late night with him, his son and about a dozen others around the fire (and bar).

When I first met him he was in the assault pioneer plattoon, ironic since one of their major roles is mine warfare....
Moved on to mortars after that, or at least instructed on the course.

[copeab]

A couple of other observations:

First, while ATGMs do have a much longer effective range than AT guns, local terrain will likely greatly limit advantage, unless you flatten and clear everything within 3,000 meters.

(OTOH, the ambush factor of an ATGM that finds a commanding view firing at very long range is significant.)

Secondly, AT guns have a useful role against attacking infantry, firing HE or some type of multiple-projectile round.

[Mohoender]

Bear in mind the context of the original post, Mo. The author wants to explore the fact that by the 1980's NATO had virually eliminated the AT gun from its collective arsenal, while the Pact forces maintained significant numbers of them. If you re-read the original post, the author doesn't even address AT guns in Twilight: 2000, other than to imply that the pre-war arsenals are the foundation of the post-Exchange arsenals.



Right. I didn't pay attention and have a tendancy to think according to T2K. My fault.:confused:

[TiggerCCW UK]

Disclaimer - This post is made on the basis of complete ignorance.

Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.

[Abbott Shaull]

Disclaimer - This post is made on the basis of complete ignorance.

Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.
Not for sure, but I think there would a few, likely several that would have to be written off as malfunctioning due to EMP.

[Abbott Shaull]

A couple of other observations:

First, while ATGMs do have a much longer effective range than AT guns, local terrain will likely greatly limit advantage, unless you flatten and clear everything within 3,000 meters.

(OTOH, the ambush factor of an ATGM that finds a commanding view firing at very long range is significant.)

Secondly, AT guns have a useful role against attacking infantry, firing HE or some type of multiple-projectile round.
Yes, ask any WWII vet who had the misfortune of being on the wrong end of German 88 that were firing at general ground targets, due to the fact there were no Allied Tanks to kill.

[Raellus]

Would EMP have affected the guidance systems of the fancy schmancy missiles? That could be another big point in favour of AT guns.

Good question. I also wonder how long some of those pre-packaged ATGMs would last under battlefield conditions (rain, heat, cold, dust) etc. If the last missiles were manufactured in '97, would they function well enough in 2000? What the normal failure rate for an ATGM and would it increase over time?

[cavtroop]

Good question. I also wonder how long some of those pre-packaged ATGMs would last under battlefield conditions (rain, heat, cold, dust) etc. If the last missiles were manufactured in '97, would they function well enough in 2000? What the normal failure rate for an ATGM and would it increase over time?

Totally anecdotal, but I got to fire a Tow-II when in the NG years ago. I forget the manufacture date, but it was pretty old. Malfunctioned on me (three of the 4 stabilizing fins popped, the observers said), sending the missile flying wildly off into the sky. It didn't respond to the self-destruct command when I let go of the yoke, either (supposed to nose dive into the ground, but I guess when your control surfaces malfunction, all bets are off).

We were told to expect 5% or so failure rate, during good times. No clue how close that is to reality though.

[Raellus]

Great story, Cavtroop. On a related note, I wonder how well the sighting/targetting and command guidance systems would hold up under battlefield conditions.

[Legbreaker]

We were told to expect 5% or so failure rate, during good times. No clue how close that is to reality though.
5%!? That's a woeful failure rate!

Regarding EMP and missiles, that's a very interesting question and one I doubt we're ever going to be able to answer (at least until certain secret and restricted documents are made public).
My guess is that most simple AT weapons should be fine (one the whole) - M72s and the like anyway as there's almost no components in them to be effected. More sophisticated wire guided, or "fire and forget" systems are another matter.

One would hope that exposed systems would be sent back to the unit armourer for testing and repair and so this shouldn't be too much of an issue by 2000 (no nukes in a few years). On the other hand, if a hidden cache of munitions was found.....

Just think of the possibilities for an evil GM!

:devil5:

[pmulcahy11b]

My guess is that most simple AT weapons should be fine (one the whole) - M72s and the like anyway as there's almost no components in them to be effected.

Those kind of rockets can even be reloaded (and probably could be in a T2K timeline.) They can also be used as mortars -- it became policy in Vietnam to bring back their expended M-72s if possible, and crush as many as they could under tracked vehicles to keep the Viet Cong from turning them into mortar tubes.

[Raellus]

Were NATO tube artillery units issued with AP rounds for self defense? If they were, I supposed then they could be used as AT guns in a pinch.

[Targan]

One would hope that exposed systems would be sent back to the unit armourer for testing and repair and so this shouldn't be too much of an issue by 2000 (no nukes in a few years). On the other hand, if a hidden cache of munitions was found.....

Just think of the possibilities for an evil GM!

:devil5:
This has occurred a number of times in my campaign. The PCs get all excited at having found some guided ATGMs only to discover that they are either dodgy or completely non-functional.

[pmulcahy11b]

Were NATO tube artillery units issued with AP rounds for self defense? If they were, I supposed then they could be used as AT guns in a pinch.

Don't think they have AP rounds, but 155mm guns have a HEAT round available. And of course a CLGP might be able to be used as an antiarmor round in a pinch, there's ICM-DP, and SADARM...

[Mohoender]

I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.

Thanks anyone:)

[kato13]

I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.

Thanks anyone:)

Again what I like about this group. We resolve things rather than let them build. Good job everyone.

[Webstral]

I already answered webstral in a private message but it seems that the smilies I chose in my last post brought some confusion. Sorry about that for anyone who founded that I might have been offensive and sorry to web. I truly found his point a good point.

Thanks anyone:)

It's true, Mo, that you're a class act.

Webstral