Twilight 2000 Anti-tank Missile Gap?

[chico20854]

For context, the maximum economic production rate for US anti-tank systems in 1986-7 was 30,000 TOW IIs and 6,720 Hellfires a year and 15,000 AT-4s a month (running that plant with 2 shifts). These numbers vs today's reflect the massive shutdowns of the defense industry post-Cold War and the greater sophistication of today's munitions.

(On the AFV side, the numbers are 1,080 M1s, 792 Brads, 540 M109s, 214 M88s, 180 FAASVs and about 600 AAVP-7s).

(These numbers also raise the question of, if they were all fired at Pact AFVs, factoring for misses, misfires, etc., would any Pact AFVs remain?)

I'm kind of working off the basis that the US ramps up to these production rates in early 1996 in response to the war in China and gradually adds more capacity from there (reflecting the relative ease of adding more workers and executing existing plans to ramp up to full production compared to retooling or building new plants all along the production chain).

For China, much of their war industry would come to a screeching halt in late 1995; their only tank plant is located in Harbin, Manchuria, as is much of their other heavy military industry. Starting in the 1960s they dispersed much of their defense production into the countryside, much of it underground, but this would likely result in massive output of small arms, recoilless rifles, mortars and so on rather than ATGMs, MANPADS, tube artillery or AFVs.

Given that NATO planning called for 30-90 days of munitions stocks, and that most nations didn't meet those levels, I figure that ATGMs (and other guided missiles) would become particularly scarce starting in the late spring of 1997. Pulling older stuff out of magazines also raises the issue of the reliability of older rocket motors and explosives... depending on the age and storage conditions the munitions could conceivably be more dangerous to the operator than the enemy!

[ToughOmbres]

Very good points from all who have posted.

I doubt things would deteriorate to the point that the old 2.35 and 3.5 inch bazookas would make a comeback in US inventories for lots of reasons. Many Third World nations would doubtlessly use them however.
Even with ramped up production (say, doubled from peacetime) I believe there would definitely be shortages before the Thanksgiving Day Exchange.
The Recoiless rifles would have some utility (Ranger Regiment kept them into the 90's IIRC?) and have a new lease on life-if ordnance could still be safely used.
Would any referee allow the cancelled VIPER anti-tank inventories to still be around, waiting to be used?
Nations that licensed anti-tank weapons such as Norway with the M-72 LAW would produce as much as they could, but comparatively small amounts I expect.
Does anyone see US forces in a pinch trading for or "acquiring" rifle grenades which France is so fond of?

[Homer]

Originally Posted by ToughOmbres

Very good points from all who have posted.

I doubt things would deteriorate to the point that the old 2.35 and 3.5 inch bazookas would make a comeback in US inventories for lots of reasons. Many Third World nations would doubtlessly use them however.
Even with ramped up production (say, doubled from peacetime) I believe there would definitely be shortages before the Thanksgiving Day Exchange.
The Recoiless rifles would have some utility (Ranger Regiment kept them into the 90's IIRC?) and have a new lease on life-if ordnance could still be safely used.
Would any referee allow the cancelled VIPER anti-tank inventories to still be around, waiting to be used?
Nations that licensed anti-tank weapons such as Norway with the M-72 LAW would produce as much as they could, but comparatively small amounts I expect.
Does anyone see US forces in a pinch trading for or "acquiring" rifle grenades which France is so fond of?

At some point it’s probably smoke grenades and satchel charges!

The M67 90mm RR stuck around into the early 90s in some combat engineer units, arctic roled light infantry, and the Berlin Brigade due to shortcomings of the Dragon. They went into storage and made a brief comeback in the 2000s/2010s in Afghanistan as part of infantry platoons before being supplanted by the Carl Gustav. There’s probably plenty of them to go around, the problem is getting them to Europeans keeping them in ammo.

Viper had its funding cut in the early 80s. The AT4/M136 was well established by the 90s, fielding in 87. Truth be told, Viper wasn’t a whole lot better than the early M72s it was supposed to replace. The AT4 has an extremely effective warhead for a disposable anti armor weapon. For my money, you may see more AT4s, or a reopening of the M72 line focusing on the later Norwegian designed M72A5 variant. You could also se the German Armbrust coming in as a substitute standard.

The US military developed and low rate purchased a rifle launched munition, the RAW. With differing procurement and the continued threat of the Soviets this program may have gone into full rate production. Failing that, there are NATO standardized bullet trap grenades. However, there’s also going to be a lot of RPGs laying around, which offer greater range and power.

[Raellus]

We've all seen what modern ATGMs do to even the most modern Cold War-era Russian MBTs. Western tanks aren't invulnerable either. Israeli Merkava IVs- arguably some of the best protected MBTs on the planet, at the time- proved vulnerable to Soviet-era ATGMs during the 2006 fighting in Lebanon.

I imagine that the West would try to arm the PLA on the cheap, as some here have quite reasonably postulated, but I wonder how stocks of older, unguided AT weapons (recoilless rifles, RPG-7s, LAWs, bazookas, and the like) would perform against up-to-date Soviet T-72s and T-64s equipped with reactive armor (or composite add-on passive armors). The trouble with unguided systems, compared to most ATGMs, is that the user has to wait until the enemy AFV is much closer before engaging. If one hopes for a KO, as opposed to a mobility kill, that probably means setting up for a flank or rear shot. These tactics might be effective, but they're extremely hazardous to the LAW user, especially if the OPFOR is properly employing combined arms tactics to deal with infantry armed with light antitank weaponry. I reckon the PLA would demand more powerful, longer-ranged, guided systems, just like Ukraine has. I reckon the West, eager to blunt Soviet aggression, would oblige.

As described in the v1 timeline, the Second Sino-Soviet War would be a larger scale conflict than the current war in Ukraine, so I'd expect that expenditures of Western ATGMs in said would far exceed what we've seen in recent months, IRL. Again, even if production in the west ramped up to full capacity, and new production lines opened as war in the East threatened to metastasize, by the time conflict in Europe erupts, stocks wouldn't be much larger than pre-war (I still think they'd be smaller by then), and early expenditures there would be one a scale not yet seen IRL, rapidly burning through existing stocks and outpacing new production.

Originally Posted by chico20854

For context, the maximum economic production rate for US anti-tank systems in 1986-7 was 30,000 TOW IIs and 6,720 Hellfires a year and 15,000 AT-4s a month (running that plant with 2 shifts). These numbers also raise the question of, if they were all fired at Pact AFVs, factoring for misses, misfires, etc., would any Pact AFVs remain?)

Probably not, but one must also factor in missiles lost in transit (Soviet subs would probably send at least a few hundred to the bottom of the Atlantic) and battlefield losses. I imagine the Soviets would lean heavily on massed artillery fires, to which dismounted ATGM crews would be particularly vulnerable. I also wonder how many missiles a disgruntled or traitorous factory worker could sabotage before being caught.

-

[bash]

In general I agree with the idea that by 2000, likely sooner, both functional tanks and ATGMs are going to be pretty rare. Even at a ratio of 10 ATGMs per killed tank (missed shots, non-kill hits, weapon destroyed, misfire, etc) there's going to be a lot of dead tanks. Let's remember that tanks will also be targeted with AGMs, other tanks, mines, bombs, and Major General Lackofmaintenance. Even tanks that survive fighting won't necessarily be mission capable by 2000 as they're one of the more complicated vehicles to keep running.

I had another thought about US production for the Chinese front. I could see a US equivalent to the RPG-76 being designed and produced. If they can be built in huge quantities they can be used against everything that's not a tank. Such a weapon would be made of stamped parts so it could be cranked out of hastily retooled factories.

As we've seen from Vietnam onwards, mechanized armies have vulnerable supply chains. Disrupting those limits how far or fast the mechanized forces can move.

[Homer]

For what it’s worth, the TOW-2A has a quoted hit probability of 90% out to its maximum range of 3750m. That said the missile is in the air for about 20 seconds during that time, and the shooter must continue to track and be exposed to fires and observation. That’s before any evasive maneuvers, jammers, etc are employed. And the wires not fouling on vegetation, wreckage, or buildings, poles, etc. That means the 6 TOW rounds in the back of an M966 (10 on an ITV) give you between 4 and 5 hits, with target kill probability being determined from there. In about 15-20 minutes of contact in a target rich environment, inclusive of repositioning (if you’re still alive), you’ve probably expended your onboard rounds.

All that math is to show that most ATGM units don’t carry a lot of potential kills onboard relative to tanks and they’ll go quickly. Thus, the demand for missile rounds at the sharp end is going to probably be high throughout the war, with most units wanting to carry or cache at least another basic load for rapid replenishment. And, for APC, motorized or light units, the heavy ATGMs will see heavier use due to the relative lack of other long range armor anti armor weapons like tank main guns or auto cannon.

The TOW, HOT, AT-5 etc will doubtless do their jobs well. But they’ll also be in high demand because of that capability.

[ToughOmbres]

Would anyone care to speculate what would become of the Copperhead artillery projectile during the Twilight War/ Ramped up production or used until the inventory is depleted and then dropped?

Doctrine called for volley fire when possible with the M-72 LAW (4 -5 preferred IIRC). Increases the likelihood of hits but would expend more precious ordnance. Do you think this would have an impact during the Twilight War or doctrine (as it do often is) would simply be abandoned for battlefield reality?