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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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.