Tube Launched Atgm In Warpac Service

[Archie Pellagio]

We talk a lot about tube launched ATGM in western experience with shillelagh and M551, M60A2 and MBT70, and it was a pretty short experiment for NATO, but the Soviets seemed to carry on with the idea and seemed to be pretty afraid of western capability with them.

What was the Soviet, WARPAC and client states experience with tube launched ATGM like Saxhorn and Sniper?

Is there much out there on their experience in combat?

How do they fit in with modern doctrine with 125mm APFDS for engagement?

Why do they keep with the idea?

[JW Collins]

Didn't they later intend to use them in an attempt to "counter-snipe" all of the TOW carriers and such NATO had?

[Jonathan Chin]

This came up years ago. V. Fofanov weighed on the subject and said that Soviet ATGMs were more accurate than their long rod-penetrators, the later of which were inherently limited by their shorter dimensions. At range ATGMs could kill TOW/Milan touting AFVs, closing the range gap.

Edited April 27, 2015 by Jonathan Chin

[Archie Pellagio]

Wouldn't the limiting factor still be the optics and FCS on soviet vehicles limiting engagement ranges below the capabilities of the weapons (both conventional rounds and ATGM) anyway?

 

I don't get that argument given the 125mm penetrators (and HEAT) would've been capable against most adversaries, especially APC/IFV based ATGM platforms out to ~2000m, certainly until Chobham vehicles like Abrams/Leo2/Chally came out? (nevermind the ability to get off multiple shots versus guiding a single ATGM)

Edited April 27, 2015 by Archie Pellagio

[Jonathan Chin]

Now that you have my unreliable memory, for the Russians there was another problem with relying on APFSDS rounds: they couldn't afford them. Circa late-80s, each Russian tank was issued a few rounds of the good stuff on board. The majority of the anti-armor munition were the ATGMs. But again, if memory serves, shot dispersion was a problem for ranges greater than 2,000 meters, and if you only have a limited number of long rod penetrator rounds, would you fire them at IFVs?

[bojan]

Wouldn't the limiting factor still be the optics and FCS on soviet vehicles limiting engagement ranges below the capabilities of the weapons (both conventional rounds and ATGM) anyway?

 

You don't need FCS for ATGM, it is conventional SACLOS, ie keep reticle on target until it hits. Sights had decent enough magnification for that purpose.

 

As for FCS it is not that simple.

T-64B/T-80B had integrated FCS, which was actually better then anything west other then M1 and Leo 1. Those two really set standard as far as FCS goes, Soviets only being able to match it with T-80U.

Later Chieftains and Challenger 1 FCS were much worse, what could be described as "semi-automatic" and functionally not much above T-72A/M/M1 level.

Leo 1A5 had good FCS, but came relatively late.

T-64A did not not have "FCS" (it had mechanical ballistic drive, like M48/60), same for base T-72. It also did not have LRF.

T-72A/M/M1 had semi-automated "ballistic corrector" which was just electronic version of early T-64/72 mechanical ballistic corrector. It lacked lead function, as well weather data input.

 

 

 

I don't get that argument given the 125mm penetrators (and HEAT) would've been capable against most adversaries, especially APC/IFV based ATGM platforms out to ~2000m, certainly until Chobham vehicles like Abrams/Leo2/Chally came out? (nevermind the ability to get off multiple shots versus guiding a single ATGM)

ATGM is niche requirement and use. Don't forget those were originally developed in '50/60s GM mania, when electronic FCS was very distant requirement for a tank. Back then those had quite a bit of range advantage, FCS evolution made it less so.

[bojan]

Now that you have my unreliable memory, for the Russians there was another problem with relying on APFSDS rounds: they couldn't afford them. Circa late-80s, each Russian tank was issued a few rounds of the good stuff on board. The majority of the anti-armor munition were the ATGMs. But again, if memory serves, shot dispersion was a problem for ranges greater than 2,000 meters, and if you only have a limited number of long rod penetrator rounds, would you fire them at IFVs?

Lol, gun launched ATGMs were horrible expensive compared to APFSDS. They could afford APFSDS, there was other reason for "few" on board - their main load was geared toward breaking through main line. 21 HE, 12 APFSDS, 6 HEAT for base T-72. They operated on principle derived from their WW2 experience that a lot of HE will be fired, often running dry, while anti-armor engagements are relatively few in real war. With their advantage in tank numbers that was correct thinking.

[Archie Pellagio]

You don't need FCS for ATGM, it is conventional SACLOS, ie keep reticle on target until it hits. Sights had decent enough magnification for that purpose.

 

As for FCS it is not that simple.

T-64B/T-80B had integrated FCS, which was actually better then anything west other then M1 and Leo 1. Those two really set standard as far as FCS goes, Soviets only being able to match it with T-80U.

Later Chieftains and Challenger 1 FCS were much worse, what could be described as "semi-automatic" and functionally not much above T-72A/M/M1 level.

Leo 1A5 had good FCS, but came relatively late.

T-64A did not not have "FCS" (it had mechanical ballistic drive, like M48/60), same for base T-72. It also did not have LRF.

T-72A/M/M1 had semi-automated "ballistic corrector" which was just electronic version of early T-64/72 mechanical ballistic corrector. It lacked lead function, as well weather data input.

ATGM is niche requirement and use. Don't forget those were originally developed in '50/60s GM mania, when electronic FCS was very distant requirement for a tank. Back then those had quite a bit of range advantage, FCS evolution made it less so.

 

 

Cool. Cheers.

 

But back to the OP

What was the Soviet, WARPAC and client states experience with tube launched ATGM like Saxhorn and Sniper?

Is there much out there on their experience in combat?

How do they fit in with modern doctrine with 125mm APFDS for engagement?

Why do they keep with the idea?

[bojan]

They were hardly used at all in combat. Rest I can not answer unfortunately.

[bd1]

but the israelis were impressed enough to launch their LAHAT-program?

[Gavin-Phillips]

Has the LAHAT ever been fired in anger?

 

Something I've always wondered about the Soviet tube-launched ATGM's is; how are they loaded? Is it a case of manually loading them or are they in the auto-loader?

Edited May 2, 2015 by Gavin-Phillips

[CaptLuke]

but the israelis were impressed enough to launch their LAHAT-program?

 

LAHAT is more of a general purpose missile that includes a gun/RR launched version. It can be used off a similar range of platforms as a TOW, but is smaller/lighter/cheaper than a Hellfire. The nearest US equivalent is probably the Griffin, without the gun launch capability of course.

[bojan]

Something I've always wondered about the Soviet tube-launched ATGM's is; how are they loaded? Is it a case of manually loading them or are they in the auto-loader?

Autoloaded.

Kobra (AT-8) is two-part missile that is assembled during loading circle.

Refleks/Svir (AT-11) has missile and separate ejecting charge to better fit T-72 two-stroke autoloader.

Edited May 3, 2015 by bojan

[Jonathan Chin]

Wasn't the theoretical range of T-90 firing ATGMs 4 to 5 km? Surely there is some use for that.

[Simon Tan]

Was Svir available in VladMart?

[Gavin-Phillips]

 

Something I've always wondered about the Soviet tube-launched ATGM's is; how are they loaded? Is it a case of manually loading them or are they in the auto-loader?

Autoloaded.

Kobra (AT-8) is two-part missile that is assembled during loading circle.

Refleks/Svir (AT-11) has missile and separate ejecting charge to better fit T-72 two-stroke autoloader.

 

 

Many thanks Bojan. That's cleared something up that I've always been curious about.

[bojan]

...

Edited May 3, 2015 by bojan

[Jonathan Chin]

 

 

Something I've always wondered about the Soviet tube-launched ATGM's is; how are they loaded? Is it a case of manually loading them or are they in the auto-loader?

Autoloaded.

Kobra (AT-8) is two-part missile that is assembled during loading circle.

Refleks/Svir (AT-11) has missile and separate ejecting charge to better fit T-72 two-stroke autoloader.

 

 

Many thanks Bojan. That's cleared something up that I've always been curious about.

 

 

I second that. A hearty thank you to Bojan.

[Mr King]

Yes thank you.

[Rickard N]

Great stuff Bojan, do you know how the are assembled and which parts there are? It's interesting from an engineering point of view

 

Cheers

 

/R

[bojan]

"Snap-together" for AT-8, during loiading circle when casette is straightened and missile rammed into gun it is snapped together. In autoloader casete:

 

Front part only w/o Starter engine and ejection charge:

And schematics, "snap fit" hook is clearly visible on the missile:

 

Reflex/Svir is single part missile with separate ejection charge, which is fitted in same stub cartridge as standard 125mm ammo. (folded fins with aft cap - before firing, fins deployed - in flight).

 

Bastion/Sheksna (AT-10/12) are fitted to conventional case, in both case it is same 100mm missile, but with "guide elements" for 115mm gun:

AT-10 for T-55:

AT-10 for low-velocity BMP-3 gun:

 

AT-12 - top missile in flight, bottom assembly in projectile case - note sabot ring on front and back to fit it to 115mm gun.

Edited May 4, 2015 by bojan

[Rickard N]

Neat, thanks for the pictures Bojan!

 

/R

[JohnAbrams21]

Thanks for the pics. Great explanations and informationals on Soviet/Russian gun-launched ATGMs. Were any ever exported before the fall of the USSR?

Edited May 19, 2015 by JohnAbrams21

[Marek Tucan]

WarPac was getting some, T-54/55AM2 were equipped to launch them (at least some of them) and IIRC procurement of Svir was considered with further T-72M upgrades but then the fall of the curtain came. Not sure if any Bastions were delivered to Czechoslovakian army at all.

[Cifu]

WarPac was getting some, T-54/55AM2 were equipped to launch them (at least some of them) and IIRC procurement of Svir was considered with further T-72M upgrades but then the fall of the curtain came. Not sure if any Bastions were delivered to Czechoslovakian army at all.

 

Hungary had the rocket gudiance system in our T-55AM tanks, but no missiles. If my sources relaible, the reason is quite painfull: it was too costly to buy the missiles...

Edited May 19, 2015 by Cifu