AT Guns

[Raellus]

I find it odd that the Soviet and WARPACT armies developed and deployed conventional anti-tank guns while NATO did not. I find it especially odd since Soviet-bloc armies were built for offense while NATO was preparing to fight largely defensively (on the ground, at least).

Why didn't NATO invest in an AT gun I figure that it's due to the West's love affair with hi-tech weapons. It seems like they made a conscious decision to go the missile route and forego the more old fashioned gun. On a more practical note, I figure that a large caliber AT gun (in keeping with NATO tank guns, 105mm minimum, 120mm max) would need a larger crew than, say, a TOW launcher, and it would probably need a prime mover more powerful than a Humvee. AT guns are also larger and harder to conceal than most missile systems.

On the pro side, AT guns have a relatively high rate of fire (around 10 rounds per minute) and kinetic energy weapons (ie standard AP rounds) have a better tank kill ratio than HEAT rounds, especially against newer types or types fitted with ERA. Most ATGMs take quite a while to reload. For example, the M113 ITV can fire two TOWs but then takes several minutes to reload.

In many ways, the Soviets ushered in the age of ATGMs with the AT-2 Sagger. They still kept the AT gun, though.

Any other reasons the west skipped on the AT gun Any significant NATO AT gun systems I might me missing here.

[kato13]

This seems reasonable

The direct-fire anti-tank [AT] gun was once thought, again, to be an anachronism, dead as the proverbial dodo. Until relatively recently, was still a TO&E item for the Russian motorized rifle division. An entire battalion of eighteen T-12 guns [100 mm] was a standard item within each Soviet/Russian division.

Long-range, direct-fire anti-tank oeartillery used to counter enemy tank assault!

Anti-tank guns available to the Russian divisional combat commander. To be used in the role of:

* Guarding the "shoulders" of a breakthrough while the division is on THE OFFENSIVE!

* Guarding that avenue of approach into the divisional area of operations felt to be most vulnerable from enemy attack - - while on THE DEFENSIVE!

With regard to the wheeled version of the AT gun, NOT self-propelled, let us refresh our memory and recall that particular chapter from the Suvorov work, oeInside the Red Army entitled, "Why are Anti-tank Guns not Self-propelled"

"1. A towed anti-tank gun is many times easier to manufacture and to use than one that is self-propelled."

"2. A towed gun has a very low silhouette, at least half that of a tank."

"3. Anti-tank guns are used in two situations. In defense, when the enemy has broken-through, is advancing fast and must be stopped at any price. And in an offensive when one's own troops have broken through and are advancing rapidly, and the enemy tries to cut through the spearhead at its base, with a flank attack."

http://militaryanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/sprut.html

I think the disposable Nature of the Soviet soldier explains why NATO abandoned guns. ATGMs can shoot and scoot quite a bit better. That option while more expensive does offer more survivability.

[copeab]

Can I assume you are excluding recoilless rifles like the 106mm M40A1 and 120mm WOMBAT because they were out of NATO service by 1996

[Raellus]

Can I assume you are excluding recoilless rifles like the 106mm M40A1 and 120mm WOMBAT because they were out of NATO service by 1996

Correct. IIRC, the U.S. also fielded a tracked 90mm AT gun, designed for support of airborne forces, back in the '50s and early '60s. It was replaced by the Sheridan. The West Germans also had a tracked 90mm AT gun which was fielded through most of the '80s, I believe. But, as you noted, most, if not all, of these systems were out of circulation by '96. The Soviets, on the other hand, had developed a 125mm AT gun to start replacing the 100mm Rapira during the late eighties.

Another track taken by the Soviets which NATO did not follow is the idea of the gun-launched AT missile. I guess the rationale behind this weapon was to give their tanks and AT guns the ability to engage NATO tanks first, beyond their maximum effective gun range.

[Abbott Shaull]

When one looks at the Soviet/Russia defensive postures. The AT-Gun would be forward of their Tank formation in the defensive belts. Thus freeing the Tank Regiment of MRD to be a mobile reserve.

On the offensive they could be used to guard flank freeing up assets that could be poured in to exploit other situation on the battle field of the Division.

[copeab]

Another track taken by the Soviets which NATO did not follow is the idea of the gun-launched AT missile. I guess the rationale behind this weapon was to give their tanks and AT guns the ability to engage NATO tanks first, beyond their maximum effective gun range.

This us likely because of the terrible experience the US had with the 152mm gun/launcher in the Sheridan and M60A2. Fire the gun and you knock the missile guidance out of alignment, fire the missile and you badly foul the barrel for firing the gun.

[Legbreaker]

I think the greatest problem with the 152mm gun is it was just too damn big! The amount of propellant required to push a 152mm projectile is always going to cause problems with a small, light vehicle such as the Sheridan was designed to be.
If they'd stuck with around 100mm they might have avoided some of those problems with recoil, however that (obviously) requires a reduction in warhead diameter and coresponding reduction in penetration performance.
Overall though, it was a system too far ahead of it's time - great in concept, but the technology of the day just wasn't up to scratch.

[Ramjam]

The main reason the Russians used the gun-launched AT missile is that their chance of hitting a target at long range were so small that NATO tank gunners had such a huge advantage over them and they need something to try to level the playing field.

What is strange is the Russians kept on going with the gun-launched AT missile system after close to 30 years instead on trying to up-grade their tank sights for their main guns.

[rcaf_777]

I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.

On other not Im an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and Im sure if you under fire it would less.

[Mohoender]

I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.

On other not I'm an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and I'm sure if you under fire it would less.

I can see several good reasons. I'm not sure about this but I would expect AT gun round to be easier to manufacture than HOT, TOW, SS-4 Spandrell... AT round would be in short supply but missiles would have become a memory. RPG and carl gustav rounds will certainly be still available but I don't see how the US army would get replacement for their disposable M-72 (I'll rather be in the Marines).

Moreover, you need less training to fire an AT gun than to use a guided missile (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong). Again RPG and Carl Gustav are a different matter. In addition, an AT gun needs less maintenance.

Then, AT guns are great on well prepared defensive position and they can be used at much longer range or for other purpose such as regular artillery. In a cantonment organization they have their place. By the way trained AT gun crew in WWII were known to fire 4-6 round in a minute. I remember seeing a report on an M1 Abrams disabled (not destroyed) by an S-60 57mm gun used in AT role at Baghdad (2003).

[Abbott Shaull]

I can see several good reasons. I'm not sure about this but I would expect AT gun round to be easier to manufacture than HOT, TOW, SS-4 Spandrell... AT round would be in short supply but missiles would have become a memory. RPG and carl gustav rounds will certainly be still available but I don't see how the US army would get replacement for their disposable M-72 (I'll rather be in the Marines).

Moreover, you need less training to fire an AT gun than to use a guided missile (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong). Again RPG and Carl Gustav are a different matter. In addition, an AT gun needs less maintenance.

Then, AT guns are great on well prepared defensive position and they can be used at much longer range or for other purpose such as regular artillery. In a cantonment organization they have their place. By the way trained AT gun crew in WWII were known to fire 4-6 round in a minute. I remember seeing a report on an M1 Abrams disabled (not destroyed) by an S-60 57mm gun used in AT role at Baghdad (2003).

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The Soviets realize that they will never be able to keep up with AT missiles demands in a fighting war. Everyone does realize that most Infantrymen are too willing to use LAWs which were compact and light compared to such missiles as the Dragon, on any obstacle that needs to removed in their way. In Vietnam more than a few were used as bunker busters.

Where as the AT guns are basically the same guns that they had been in their tanks. So in theory they would get resupplied.

Yes, even the Soviet/Russia RPG-7/9s have been known to make M1 disabled for all practical purposes. Once you take away a Tanks ability to move, they are that much less of threat. Just a immobile pillbox with 4 soldiers who know all to well sitting ducks.

[Raellus]

The main reason the Russians used the gun-launched AT missile is that their chance of hitting a target at long range were so small that NATO tank gunners had such a huge advantage over them and they need something to try to level the playing field.

Although I don't disagree that by most accounts NATO tank gunnery was superior, I believe the rationale behind the Soviet's gun-launched missile is that it can flat-out outrange tank guns, giving the user, in theory, a first shot/kill ability. I think that the Soviets also intended for the missile to have a secondary role- anti-helicopter weapon.

I'm not a fan, per se, but it would be nice to have the missile option.

[Raellus]

I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.

On other not I'm an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and I'm sure if you under fire it would less.

Light, man-portable AT systems (pre-Javelin/Tankbreaker), especially unguided ones like the LAW, have limited range and relatively modest armor penetration capabilities, especially against newer composite and reactive armors. An M-72 LAW might be able to take out a T-55, but its not likely to do much to a T-72 with ERA (apart from a mobility kill).

As for reload times, in combat, with people shooting at you, do you move faster or slower It seems that rushing it would be a recipe for error.

[copeab]

Where as the AT guns are basically the same guns that they had been in their tanks. So in theory they would get resupplied.

I wonder how many of the wrecked tanks (and there are plenty in T2K) have had their guns pulled and installed as either a static defensive weapon or with an improvised towed carriage. Of course, an M256 is going to have a big kick and will be a lot for it's crew to manhandle ...

[copeab]

Light, man-portable AT systems (pre-Javelin/Tankbreaker), especially unguided ones like the LAW, have limited range and relatively modest armor penetration capabilities, especially against newer composite and reactive armors. An M-72 LAW might be able to take out a T-55, but its not likely to do much to a T-72 with ERA (apart from a mobility kill).

Although in 2000 I think you are more likely to face a T-55 than a T-72.