# ATGM Overrated ?



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2008)

From strategypage.

Hapless Hezbollah ATGMs Revealed

August 27, 2008: Israel has published the analysis of armored vehicle losses during the 2006 war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Of the 23 members of the armored corps killed in action, 15 were killed by ATGMs (Anti-Tank Guided Missiles), and seven by mines. The cause of death for the other 1 is not recorded specifically. Most probably gunfire hitting a vehicle commander with his head out of a hatch to get a better view of the situation. Over half of the armor casualties are attributable to just 3-4 incidents. The ATGM Merkava tank deaths are all accounted for by just 6-7 hits. 

There were 14 APCs (armored personnel carriers) hit by ATGMs. In two of these incidents, seven troops in the vehicles were killed. APCs got perforated 11 times. The APCs involved were Achzarits (rebuilt, turretless, T-55 tanks) and Pumas (rebuilt, turretless, Centurion tanks). Three APCs hit mines, killing 5 infantrymen in two incidents (4 in one vehicle). Some 90 percent of these APC casualties all occurred in one night. In comparison, 14 infantrymen were killed by ATGMs fired at buildings. The vast majority of the infantry casualties were still caused by bullets, grenades, and shell fire (including PRGs). 

Despite the many hundreds of engagements, there are only 8-9 recorded incidents where Hezbollah ATGM fire was able to cause deaths inside armored vehicles, and four times where AT fire killed troops in buildings. 

The experience in Lebanon again proves that ATGMs tend to be overrated. Israel first encountered ATGMs during the 1973 war, and quickly adapted. ATGMs were much less effective in the 1982 war, and didn't do all that well in 2006 either. Hezbollah quickly learned that the Merkava frontal armor was impervious to their Russian Kornet ATGMs. Getting side and rear shots was more difficult, and not a lot more successful. While the ATGM warhead often penetrated, the Merkava was designed to take these kind of hits and survive, and survive it did. In addition to fire extinguisher systems, the ammo and fuel are stored in such a way that secondary explosions are rare. Thus the crew normally survives these hits, as does the tank. 

Hezbollah has received several thousand ATGMs over the years. Many of them are elderly, like the Russian Sagger. This is a 1960s design. It's a 24 pound missile, with a range of 3,000 meters, that must be carefully "driven" to its target via a joy stick controller. Requires a lot of practice to do right. The warhead is not very effective against tanks, but can do a lot of damage to buildings. Iran also sent some elderly TOW missiles, dating from the 1970s. These are too heavy to haul around, and most are unstable because of age. Lighter ATGM systems have proved more useful. 

The French made MILAN ATGM, a 1970s design, has a 35 pound launch unit, firing a 16 pound, wire guided missile, with a maximum range of 2,000 meters. The Syrians got MILAN from France, and passed them on to Hezbollah. A similar Russian system, the 9M111 Fagot, has a 25 pound missile fired from a 24 pound launch unit. An even more modern Russian system, the Kornet E, is a laser guided missile with a range of 5,000 meters. The launcher has a thermal sight for use at night or in fog. The missile's warhead can penetrate 1200 mm of armor, which means that the side armor of the Israeli Merkava tank would be vulnerable. The missile weighs 18 pounds and the launcher 42 pounds. The system was introduced in 1994 and has been sold to Syria (who apparently passed them on to Hezbollah). -- William F. Owen


----------



## stegner (27 Aug 2008)

> The French made MILAN ATGM, a 1970s design, has a 35 pound launch unit, firing a 16 pound, wire guided missile, with a maximum range of 2,000 meters. The Syrians got MILAN from France, and passed them on to Hezbollah. A similar Russian system, the 9M111 Fagot, has a 25 pound missile fired from a 24 pound launch unit. An even more modern Russian system, the Kornet E, is a laser guided missile with a range of 5,000 meters. The launcher has a thermal sight for use at night or in fog. The missile's warhead can penetrate 1200 mm of armor, which means that the side armor of the Israeli Merkava tank would be vulnerable. The missile weighs 18 pounds and the launcher 42 pounds. The system was introduced in 1994 and has been sold to Syria (who apparently passed them on to Hezbollah)



Does the Merkava have better armour than the Challenger 2.   As during the Second Gulf War a MILAN fired by Iraqis just bounced off the Challenger 2.


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

WRT what happened during GW2, a lot depends on the skill of the gunner.

WRT Merkava VS Challenger2 armour..... 
Who knows - that kind of info will not be discussed here.  Wikipedia will tell you pert much all that is ok to print:

Challenger 2 is one of the most heavily armoured and best protected tanks in the world. The turret and hull are protected with second generation Chobham armour (also known as Dorchester) the details of which are still classified. Explosive Reactive Armour (ERA) kits are also fitted as necessary

Merkava 3  Incorporates the Kasag modular armor system, designed for rapid replacement and repair in the battlefield and for quick upgrading as new designs and sophisticated materials become available.


Also, let's face it, countries have adapted some form of "bird cage" style slat armour shields that results in RPG &  ATGMs detonating before coming into contact with the AFV.


----------



## MG34 (27 Aug 2008)

The RPG 27 and 29 have been credited with both mobility (M) and catestrophic (K) kills of MBTs in Iraq and Lebanon, as well the use of modern top attack missiles has not been widespread in either theater of operations, I suspect that a modern top attack system such as  TOW 2B,BILL2, etc would still be an effective option to destry the MBTs currently fielded.


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA and hull of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, injuring a crew member.

In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that an American M1 tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.


----------



## stegner (27 Aug 2008)

> Also, let's face it, countries have adapted some form of "bird cage" style slat armour shields that results in RPG &  ATGMs detonating before coming into contact with the AFV.



Indeed.  As well, the IDF is starting to place Trophy systems on its Merkava's and is developing Iron Fist.  The U.S is developing Quick Kill.



> In 2007, British officials confirmed that an RPG-29 round penetrated the frontal ERA and hull of a Challenger 2 tank during an engagement in al-Amarah, Iraq, injuring a crew member.
> 
> In May 2008, The New York Times disclosed that an American M1 tank had also been damaged by an RPG-29 in Iraq.



Yikes!


----------



## geo (27 Aug 2008)

stegner said:
			
		

> Yikes!



No mention that the vehicles were destroyed with the loss of the entire crew.
I would think that this is indicative of mobility kills... Live to fight another day


----------



## MG34 (27 Aug 2008)

According to a Marine Times article in the case of the M1A1 2 crew members were wounded requiring cas evac.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Aug 2008)

Anti RPG net

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=880sNxN9MLQ


----------



## T.I.M. (28 Aug 2008)

As a general rule I'd say ALL weapons are overrated.  I've seen Hellfires bounce off SUVs and Taliban run out of the explosions of 500 pound bombs - and on the flipside read reports of massive IEDs that went off under passing vehicles and didn't do any more than scratch the paint, or unarmoured vehicles that ran a kilometer long gauntlet of RPGs and AK fire and the occupants emerged with just a few flesh wounds.  Humans just seem to be far tougher (or maybe luckier) than weapon effects theory estimates, a phenomenon going all the way back to WWI.  For all the firepower we humans now posses, it's still devilishly hard to actually KILL people with it.


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

> As a general rule I'd say ALL weapons are overrated.  I've seen Hellfires bounce off SUVs and Taliban run out of the explosions of 500 pound bombs - and on the flipside read reports of massive IEDs that went off under passing vehicles and didn't do any more than scratch the paint, or unarmoured vehicles that ran a kilometer long gauntlet of RPGs and AK fire and the occupants emerged with just a few flesh wounds.  Humans just seem to be far tougher (or maybe luckier) than weapon effects theory estimates, a phenomenon going all the way back to WWI.  For all the firepower we humans now posses, it's still devilishly hard to actually KILL people with it.



Well said


----------



## Spencer100 (28 Aug 2008)

Did the Isrealis have the trophy system on any of their AFV in the war.  Did it work?  (How does Trophy work anyway?......not that anyone who knows is going tell )


----------



## stegner (28 Aug 2008)

Did the Isrealis have the trophy system on any of their AFV in the war.  Did it work?  (How does Trophy work anyway?......not that anyone who knows is going tell Wink)

Not in any large numbers.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Sep 2008)

This is just a continuation of the dance between offense and defense that has been going on for all time. (Plants evolved spines, bark, noxious smells and poisons against herbivores, and herbivores have evolved an impressive variety of responses to predators...). The armour of medieval knights and men at arms constantly improved against swords, spears and arrows (while swords evolved to rapiers that could penetrate joints in the armour, chisel point longbow arrows were issued to the English, while more and more powerful crossbows became the norm in Europe, and penetrating weapons like spears were supplanted by smashing weapons like maces and war hammers). 

I remember how shocked people were after the 1973 Yom Kippur War when the Egyptians used ATGMs en mass against massed armour for the first time in war. The tank was declared dead at that time (even though the use of combined arms allowed the Israeli forces to negate the threat and punch across the Suez canal, winning the war), and post mortem analysis revealed Israeli armour could survive ATGM hits (there are stories of tanks returning from the front draped in guidance wires from Egyptian "Saggers", for example). The weak points of the M-48 and M-60 tanks in Israeli service were noted and corrected, and this knowledge has been applied and refined in various forms, including replacing hydraulic systems with electric, add on passive and active armour arrays and improved vehicle layouts with the Merkava and Achzarit.

Eventually, something will give. The American "FCS" systems are designed around the idea that armour penetrators will increase in power to 40+ megajoules within the next generation, so light, nimble "small furry mammals" need to evolve to evade the threat rather than try to over match it. I suspect that the answer may lie in taking to the air (defending against three dimensional threats is orders of magnitude harder than two dimensional threats). Something entirely new might come along that we would have as hard a time conceptualizing as firearms would have been to a Knight in the 1300's.

The real answer always lies not in the equipment but the users. The IDF relearned combined arms on the fly and prevailed in 1973, while the Iraqi army, with its huge size and modern Russian and French equipment was drubbed twice in a decade by superior American tactics and strategy.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2008)

Yet another good reason to retain the 106/120mm recoiless rifles in our AT inventories for infantry units...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2008)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yet another good reason to retain the 106/120mm recoiless rifles in our AT inventories for infantry units...



As exciting as a MOBAT or WOMBAT would be to have, (much less the 106mm RR); they have been phased out long ago. If any are still around, they must be packed in cosmoline in war stores. I do like the idea of a portable artillery system, since it can also be used to blast bunkers and other useful tasks. If I had the power to do so, I would actually ask for a modern version of the PAW-600, since it provides most of the advantages of a recoiless rifle without the annoying backblast.


----------

