ATGM Realities

[Mad Russian]

I have, as many of you, read a bit about modern warfare.

One of the things I have seen time after time is if you are the target of an ATGM launch you either try to suppress the gunner or maneuver out of the way of the missile. Good plan in either case.

However....it seems to me that battlefields are very busy places. Which would mean a lot of things are happening all at once. Which would mean that seeing a missile launched at you personally would be like identifying a needle in a haystack.

What are the realistic chances of you seeing an ATGM launch in the middle of a firefight that was aimed at you. Not the driving down the road on a Sunday afternoon and you see a single launch in the distance. No, the neck deep, battle group vs battle group, everyone firing at everyone else, free for all that is much more likely to take place.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kipanderson]

MR, hi,

I second your musing on the subject.

I often have thought the same when considering an ATG fired within a full scale WWII battlefield.. not from a tree line within an “empty battlefield..” as the first round in a battle.

Either way.. I too wonder..

All the best,
Kip.

[DoubleDeuce]

I think the only one you might get a glimpse of is the one you happen to be looking in the direction of at the time of launch. Even then you couldn't be sure they were firing it at you although if your gunner (or someone using optics) was looking at that spot, they might be able to determine if you are the intended target.

Then again, if you are in the defense and see the puff, do you engage and give away your position even if you can't be sure you are the target?

[Tazak]

I remember our anti-tank plt using a trick with thunderflash and smoke grenades to 'create' several false firing points, not sure how effective the trick would've been but there again if your buttoned down and see several flashes and smoke from different locations are you really going to spend much of the Milan's 12 second flight time working out which one is real and which ones aren't.

[WildCatNL]

This video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco ), showing the TOW-2 flying towards you, suggests you are very unlikely to spot the missile after launch (it is visible around 0:33 into the video).

And then there's ATGM systems with remote launch capability (AT-3 w control box, FV438 Swingfire) so the attacker isn't where the puff is (although he would be close).
The battlefield isn't a fun place.

William

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

I think the only one you might get a glimpse of is the one you happen to be looking in the direction of at the time of launch. Even then you couldn't be sure they were firing it at you although if your gunner (or someone using optics) was looking at that spot, they might be able to determine if you are the intended target.

For me personally, a much more likely scenario is that SOMEONE sees the launch and tries to suppress or destroy the launcher. No matter who the missile is aimed at.

Then again, if you are in the defense and see the puff, do you engage and give away your position even if you can't be sure you are the target?

If you are on defense and that kind of a launch is observed I would think you might have a good chance to outmaneuver the missile.

Maybe not.

Good Hunting.

MR

[battlerbritain]

Didn't the Israelis adopt a 'Sagger-watch' tactic of everybody in the battle group watches for an ATGM launch and if anybody sees a launch they alert the entire group and shoot at where they think the launch came from?

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
What are the realistic chances of you seeing an ATGM launch in the middle of a firefight that was aimed at you. Not the driving down the road on a Sunday afternoon and you see a single launch in the distance. No, the neck deep, battle group vs battle group, everyone firing at everyone else, free for all that is much more likely to take place.

Once you have a decisive engagement going on, all bets are off.

Movement to contact is different, with SOPs for different vehicles or platoons to be scanning different sectors with gun tubes oriented and ready to provide suppressive fire. Better yet with bounding overwatch you'd have some dedicated covering fire. The SOPs may be different for having HE or AP loaded and ready depending on the situation. Either way you could respond with some suppressive fires and perhaps disrupt the ATGM shot(s). But once you're in contact and buttoned up, you lose that awareness and readiness to respond to different sectors.

I have to share a funny ATGM story. One of our TOW crews at Grafenwoehr gunnery were sure they hit the heated target on a night range, but were told no they didn't. Next morning in the downrange sweep they found Bambi splattered. Poor deer had no idea what hit him, at night from 2000m. [:D]

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: battlerbritain

Didn't the Israelis adopt a 'Sagger-watch' tactic of everybody in the battle group watches for an ATGM launch and if anybody sees a launch they alert the entire group and shoot at where they think the launch came from?

Yes, and I think that's the origin of all the 'ATGM Response' SOP's you can read about now.

What I'm concerned with is, if you aren't in the desert, you couldn't identify a launch at your personal vehicle in a moderate terrain environment. Moderate terrain being anything where there is vegetation or buildings that would make observation of the launch site or action difficult to identify.

Good Hunting.

MR

[SwampYankee68]

I would think that unless you believe there are friendly troops in the area in which you see a launch you are going to suppress it without regard to whether it is aimed at you specifically. Unless you are already engaging a definite threat to your vehicle.

[MikeGER]

this actual video shows 'the sice of the puff' of a Milan fired agains an assumed IS sniper position beginning at @2:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW7jjzevJ28

[battlerbritain]

Doing a quick Google search on Saggers and 1973 threw up a few stories where Israeli Merkavas in Lebanon in 82 couldn't see the firing of 2nd Gen ATGMs (AT-4s) by Hezbollah.

The first the Merkavas knew of ATGMs was when they hit.

pdf here: http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2sparks98.pdf

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Swamp_Yankee

I would think that unless you believe there are friendly troops in the area in which you see a launch you are going to suppress it without regard to whether it is aimed at you specifically. Unless you are already engaging a definite threat to your vehicle.

Agreed. The part of the SOP that this was referring to was to maneuver away from the missile. I don't see you having time for that. If you are going to try to suppress the area from the ATGM launch I don't know that you would have time to maneuver and also put effective fire on the area. It would seem you could possibly do one or the other but not both.

Good Hunting.

MR

[kipanderson]

Pzgndr, hi,

“I have to share a funny ATGM story. One of our TOW crews at Grafenwoehr gunnery were sure they hit the heated target on a night range, but were told no they didn't. Next morning in the downrange sweep they found Bambi splattered. Poor deer had no idea what hit him, at night from 2000m”

Fantastic.. still laughing, but I know one shouldn’t really.. ; ).

All the best,
Kip.

[TheWombat_matrixforum]

If you peruse the LiveLeak videos of the Syrian war going on now, you can find lots of videos of TOW launches against Syrian army tanks, mostly. In none of them that I've viewed have the crews of the tanks even reacted to the launches, until their tank gets hit. And while these launches are often in urban/suburban environments, with a fair amount of clutter, they are also singular events, about the best case scenario for an alert crew to detect a launch. Granted, the Syrian T-72 crews probably aren't exactly primo, but they presumably have been in combat for a bit. So I'd add this to the circumstantial evidence pointing to a low likelihood of detection.

[Mad Russian]

It seems to me that the defensive thought process is that the ATGM will hit the tank. That's why ERA and composite armor was developed. To me that's an admission that they feel the chances are greater that the ATGM will hit the tank rather than they can do something to keep that from happening.

Good Hunting.

MR

[IronMikeGolf]

MCLOS ATGM were much more susceptible to suppression. The time of flight was longer. It needed to be for the gunner to steer the missile with a joystick. Add to that what happens to the hand on the joystick with a near miss by an HE round....

SACLOS systems have missiles that fly faster (AT3: 115 m/sec, AT4: 185 m/sec, AT5: 200 m/sec, AT6: 300 m/sec)

Opinion: the launch signature detected by Israelis in 73 was predominantly dust/sand kicked up by the launch motor. Sagger has a pretty soft launch (80 m/sec or so) and not much flash or smoke. The flight motor accelerates the missile. That motor does have a smoke trail. I think you'd also see flame of the flight motor, unless it is coming straight at you. Might see the tail flare even then. Obscurants work, include a HEAT round shot about 100 m away. The dust kicked up combined with a sagger dance worked. Shooting HEAT like that would likely not work in Europe. Sagger dance won't work against SACLOS systems. Too easy to correct tracking. A truck or car might be nimble enough, but a tank or APC has too much inertia.

[jds1978]

Just my gut assumption.....you'll know when your tanks ammo and fuel storage blow. In European terrain , your ability to keep track of whats happening is going to be pretty limited.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: TheWombat
If you peruse the LiveLeak videos of the Syrian war going on now, you can find lots of videos of TOW launches against Syrian army tanks, mostly. In none of them that I've viewed have the crews of the tanks even reacted to the launches, until their tank gets hit.

But how much weight can we give to this conclusion? I haven't seen any of these videos, but maybe part of the reason for this is that only videos where the TOW hits the tank are posted? In other words, if the tank sees the TOW and reacts, and the missile misses, would there be a video?

But generally I agree with what you're saying about the environment, the crews, etc.

[IronMikeGolf]

I've watched a few of those Live Leak videos. Common theme is a parked tanked that does not seem to be fighting. Wisely, the ATGM crew engages when the turret is not pointed at them. You won't hear a TOW launch a couple of klicks away, even with your combat vehicle crewman's helmet off. You got about 3 or 4 seconds after launch to detect the smoke cloud from the launch motor, so you have to be looking at it at launch time. The biggest signature for the TOW is the first couple of seconds the flight motor burns. The happens a couple of seconds after launch.

Big difference from taking missile fire from the terrain that is the objective you are attacking. And overwatching elements matter too. The videos I watched were lone tanks being smacked.