# Anti Tank Weapons



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2016)

Can't find a current thread about Anti-Tank Weapons...... I'm sure that says something.

Also, finding anything about new weapons in Canadian service is challenging.  So discovering this article was interesting.









> #PhotoOfTheWeek A member of 1 Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (1 #PPCLI), watches for #enemy movement with a *M136 AT4*-Shoulder-Launched Munitions #weapon during Exercise ALLIED SPIRIT V as part of Operation #REASSURANCE on October 12, 2016.
> 
> Photo: Cpl Jay Ekin, Operation REASSURANCE Land Task Force Imagery Technician #StrongProudReady
> 
> For more excellent Canadian #Army images, visit us on Flickr (http://bit.ly/1k8tNmn) and Instagram (http://bit.ly/1OCc3Ps).



The single shot CG-84, fitted for Confined Spaces.

It begs the question:  How does the acquisition system treat systems like this?   Are they weapons, ammunition or just consummables?  Presumably they fall into the same category as grenades, pyro ans M72s.

Are there other systems, like the 150mm NLAW, that we are looking at to thicken our Anti-Tank capability?  

Presumably these are deployed with the Rifle Sections/Platoons and don't require a dedicated Anti-Tank Section/Platoon.


----------



## LightFighter (22 Oct 2016)

That AT4 is probably from the US Forces training alongside the Canadians out there.


As for our weapons, I found the following from DAG 2015 Land Systems Services
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/land-systems.page

84mm Carl Gustaf Upgrade
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/land-systems-334.page

84mm Ammunition
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/land-systems-343.page

Anti Tank Guided Missile Replacement
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-defence-acquisition-guide-2015/land-systems-384.page


----------



## larry Strong (22 Oct 2016)

> The new rifle will be compatible with the



Not sure I would call the Carl G a "rifle".......

    


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2016)

Actually Larry, I'm pretty sure it is.  The barrel has grooves and lands.






Borrowing from an old instructor's spiel on the FN (a shoulder-fired, magazine-fed,(Edit: semi-automatic - I knew I forgot something) gas-operated rifle) then the CG would be a shoulder-fired, single-shot, breech-loaded, recoilless rifle.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2016)

LightFighter said:
			
		

> That AT4 is probably from the US Forces training alongside the Canadians out there.
> 
> 
> As for our weapons, I found the following from DAG 2015 Land Systems Services
> ...


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Also, finding anything about new weapons in Canadian service is challenging.  So discovering this article was interesting.


The weapon, like the vehicle in the background, is not Canadian.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (24 Oct 2016)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Not sure I would call the Carl G a "rifle".......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I like how they call it a rocket launcher, but as I recall only 1 type of ammo is rocket assist?


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2016)

The timelines for anti armour weapons programs are ridiculous, particularly since we are not actually inventing anything new; there are dozens of weapons systems in production so most of this is catalogue shopping and testing (to ensure these things work in our environment(s), and sadly finding the right palms to grease to get things done.

Perhaps if the guys in Iraq were to put in an urgent operational requirement we might be able to get AT-4's as "bunker busters" (which also happen to work against tanks and other AFV's). It should not be too difficult to demonstrate that "plinking" technicals and the captured tanks ISIS owns from longer distances is also an "urgent" requirement, Javelin lets you do this from 2500m, while various members of the SPIKE family can be used to 4000m (SPIKE-LR) or even 8000m (SPIKE-ER).

And of course there are now UAV's which can deliver small warheads out to 10km like the AeroVironment (AV) Switchblade or the MBDA TiGER. Although sized for 40mm grenade warheads, there is nothing to say these cannot be substituted for HEAT warheads instead.

It is just so frustrating to see things spinning with no traction as much of the world drifts into larger and more widespread conflicts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2016)

The new lightweight Carl G comes with a round counter as they have a much shorter barrel life, no free ride. Seem we could buy the more traditional one for defense and training. Use the lighter one for more offensive ops.


----------



## Lightguns (26 Oct 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Actually Larry, I'm pretty sure it is.  The barrel has grooves and lands.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Correct, the Carl G is the same class as the 57mm, 90mm, 106mm Recoilless Rifles.  I believe the 120mm WOMBAT(?) is also a rifle.  For the most part Recoilless rifles are obsolete class of weapon, although the hand held versions are still loved by infantry everywhere, especially for humping.  Some countries, I think, still use them in place to Man portable ATGMs in severe cold climates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2016)

Funny enough in the combat zones RR's are happily carrying on and one of the SF units in Afghanistan borrowed a 106mm and used it to provide direct fire support from their base onto annoying snipers and the like. They still provide a lot of punch at a very reasonable cost, particularly in places where you are fixed and ou not worried about blast signatures. I suspect that R&D could reduce the blast signature issue as well if there was enough interest.


----------



## Lightguns (26 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Funny enough in the combat zones RR's are happily carrying on and one of the SF units in Afghanistan borrowed a 106mm and used it to provide direct fire support from their base onto annoying snipers and the like. They still provide a lot of punch at a very reasonable cost, particularly in places where you are fixed and ou not worried about blast signatures. I suspect that R&D could reduce the blast signature issue as well if there was enough interest.



Tech is there; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armbrust


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2016)

At that point you are into a totally different class of systems. In the current type of ME warfare, direct Fire weapons are the most common, something like the 106 or the 120mm Wombat would be quite useful still and cheap to use and transport. Modern FCS get’s rid of the ranging gun, redesigning the venturi’s and possibly the propellant could likely reduce the amount of burnt propellant required for the backblast. Problem with evolutionary changes to older weapon systems like this is that it is hard to get rich flogging them. There is clearly a demand for them and they would suit the typical use and fit into the mix between the manheld AT weapon and the ATGM. Plus a cheap way to destroy mudhuts.

I think the looming reality coming down the road is that the west will struggle to have enough of the high tech stuff to destroy all the targets, it could be that you get 5 missiles and 2 launchers for your front and dependent on just the Carl G.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2016)

Recoiless weapons based on the countershot principle (the high speed gas coming out the venturi is simply taking the principle to "11") will always have the issue of dealing with the countershot, either it is a mass of some physical "stuff" (the Davis Gun used a weight of shot packed in grease) or the gasses blasting out the back.

The only other system I am aware of is the "High/Low Pressure" gun system. First introduced near the end of WWII with the German PAW-600, we use the system today with the 40mm M-203 grenade, and it was also used in the 1960's in the Swedish "Miniman" anti tank weapon.

http://infogalactic.com/info/Miniman



> *Miniman*
> 
> Pansarskott m/68 "Miniman"
> Type	Anti-tank
> ...



Frankly, for short to medium range engagements, the RPG-7 with an improved sight and warhead would be ideal, being rugged, cheap and having a maximum range of over 900m (where it is used more like a mortar to engage area targets when the warhead self destructs).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2016)

I like the idea of a company/Battlion asset that can lob 105/120mm HESH at a hut for cheap.


----------



## MilEME09 (26 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like the idea of a company/Battlion asset that can lob 105/120mm HESH at a hut for cheap.



make it small enough and you can mount it on say a G-wagon, or man portable by a weapons det, would give a good amount of stopping power to give you a cheap boom against light vehicles, and structures.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Oct 2016)

Been done


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2016)

We even had some.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (27 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Recoiless weapons based on the countershot principle (the high speed gas coming out the venturi is simply taking the principle to "11") will always have the issue of dealing with the countershot, either it is a mass of some physical "stuff" (the Davis Gun used a weight of shot packed in grease) or the gasses blasting out the back.



The AT4 confined space model uses a liquid countermass.  While effective, and allowing a minuscule propelling charge there is one big drawback.  Should the countermass leak out the projectile doesn't go very far.  Point to note, the countermass can leak out...sometimes you spot the rear cover bulging, sometimes you don't.
The IRA's PRIG used biscuits, much tastier.

Someone mentioned WOMBAT, that's the Weapon of Magnesium, Battalion Anti-Tank for your UFI for the day.


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I like the idea of a company/Battlion asset that can lob 105/120mm HESH at a hut for cheap.



You are thinking about the war we just fought.  What about the next war and who are we going to fight?  I would imagine that should drive our procurement of AT. The big issue is who do we fight next, war, continues to be, very much, "come as you are" because there is no unsinkable aircraft carrier to spend 3 years building up and getting drunk before the actual fight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Oct 2016)

Which is why I advocate for the Regs to have mainly ATGM's, give the Reserves large Recoiless Rifles for shooting and ATGM trainers for practice. If you get into another Afghanistan use the RR to destroy Grapehuts when there are no tanks around. It gives you some deployable depth, lets the Reserves train on some fun kit which will help retention.


----------



## Lightguns (27 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Which is why I advocate for the Regs to have mainly ATGM's, give the Reserves large Recoiless Rifles for shooting and ATGM trainers for practice. If you get into another Afghanistan use the RR to destroy Grapehuts when there are no tanks around. It gives you some deployable depth, lets the Reserves train on some fun kit which will help retention.



That sounds like a plan but they would likely both end up firing 7.62 sub calibres and calling it a qualification.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Oct 2016)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> The AT4 confined space model uses a liquid countermass.  While effective, and allowing a minuscule propelling charge there is one big drawback.  *Should the countermass leak out the projectile doesn't go very far.  Point to note, the countermass can leak out...sometimes you spot the rear cover bulging, sometimes you don't.*



A solution to the leaking problem?


----------

