Anti-Tank Platoon or Anti-Tank Battery? - 24 Vertical Launch JAGMs on a WAPC
- Thread starter Kirkhill
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Points
- 1,160
A companion piece, also from Rheinmetall: the Skyknight from the UAE's Halcon.
A 35 kg missile (about half the weight of a Sidewinder and twice that of the Mistral, RBS-70 and Starstreak. It has a range of 10 km.
It is vertically launched from a sea can with an ISO-20 holding 60 in ready to launch attitude. It can launch individual missiles, groups, ripples or a single salvo.
en.wikipedia.org
A 35 kg missile (about half the weight of a Sidewinder and twice that of the Mistral, RBS-70 and Starstreak. It has a range of 10 km.
It is vertically launched from a sea can with an ISO-20 holding 60 in ready to launch attitude. It can launch individual missiles, groups, ripples or a single salvo.
Skyknight (missile) - Wikipedia
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Points
- 1,160
Consider a tactical package with a single sensor vehicle, a Skyknight vehicle and a pair of JAGM/Brimstone vehicles, perhaps a command vehicle, a security det vehicle and a rover, all sporting C-UAS RWS systems for local defence. All mounted on wheeled APC/PMV.
1x 19 km radar
48x 16 km SSMs
60x 10 km SAMs
7 vehicles
~ 22 personnel
Add in the requisite sUAS systems.
I suggest that for the navy such a grouping would be a light coast patrol vessel employed to control the littoral when backed by heavier forces.
I also suggest that a hundred such groups would deny a lot of terrain to incursive forces. I further suggest that even with lots of artillery the assaulting force would have great difficulty in disrupting all the roads in the network over which such a force would travel.
Keep your tracks for the schwerpunkt.
And for those places where there are no roads (and by amazing coincidence, no people).
....
PS a C-UAS RWS would have a 30mm M230LF. The unit would have 7 of them for all aspect point/local defence.
HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,399
- Points
- 1,040
JAGM has a 16 km range, is fire and forget with a MMW seeker and a warhead effective against tanks, aircraft, ships and structures......
Who wants it?
Been slowly reading up on it, such a fascinating evolution of the tank destroyer. Pair it with drones for spotting and targeting and it may prove to be an absolute menace to anything it faces on the battlefield.
- Reaction score
- 8,367
- Points
- 1,140
It reminds me of a BattleTech SRM launcher.
It's cool to see MechWarrior/BattleTech getting closer to reality.
- Reaction score
- 7,917
- Points
- 1,210
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,903
- Points
- 990
I'm just an idiot civilian, but too me that's determined by dispersion and doctrine. My thinking, in laymans terms:Who wants it?
Assuming a 90 degree arc of responsibility, your single vehicle can provide coverage for 22.6km of front.
Assuming you want it to be able to hit targets at some sort of standoff distance in front of the supported troops (let's say 4k) across the entire arc, step that in and you've got your supported troops with frontage of 17km.
To my uninformed sense that seems like an arty weapon held at Bde at minimum.
I don't agree that the launchers themselves would be able to deny territory. But could a battery (or even a detachment)go a long way to helping a LAV + Medium Cavalry Capability equipped CMBG be able to be more effective in a widely dispersed screen/guard?
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Points
- 1,160
I think you and I are heading the same place.
I could see a roaming package, such as that I described, and one of many, keeping the opposing force at bay, both on the ground and in the air, screening in other words, and assist in creating the space for battalions and brigades to manoeuvre.
So a Div Commander's direct command of the Regiment.
...
WRT denying territory....if you box the enemy into a kill zone does that not deny it that territory?
- Reaction score
- 15,313
- Points
- 1,160
A new version of the US Tank Destroyer battalion doctrine.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 28,223
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 15,313
- Points
- 1,160
Boiled down, the doctrine was massed fires onto the armoured thrust. This basically replicates that using a smaller formation.
- Reaction score
- 10,786
- Points
- 1,160
The old tank destroyers used to use tank guns to engage tanks with similar guns, The only means they had available to create a tactical advantage was to create a local mass by means of deception, camouflage and masking terrain. Ultimately though they had to congregate, to concentrate, and as soon as they engaged they were unmasked and became as vulnerable as any other artillery unit.
These modern systems outrange their targets by factors of 5 or so. They can simultaneously launch a single stonk equivalent to a battery firing four rounds. They can fire from dispersed positions. They are constantly on the move. They can launch attacks from multiple vectors either simultaneously or in staggered sequence. They can engage in depth and respond to the covering fire.
Then is not now.
Similar threads
