Jump to content
tanknet.org

How Can Infantry Potentially Combat Aps Equipped Vehicles?


Recommended Posts

Until recently, the infantry vs armour equation equation seemed to be going ever more in favour of infantry with better and better ATGMs and unguided launchers. By and large any advance in armour could be countered by a better warhead or attack profile. APS changes all that. How will infantry weapons and tactics evolve to counter APS equipped vehicles?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One option is to just use more missiles (and then by necessity smaller missiles, and then necessarily with some top attack capability in order to be lethal), and simply saturate the defenses, perhaps with some sort of salvo fire (eg. a single launcher launching 2 or more missiles at once). This is sort of a return to the early 1970's, where you would expect to have to expend quite a few rounds to achieve a hit.

The strategic level response here is the development of the suitable missile(s), their production at low cost, and their proliferation. Possibly every squad could get something like this. Of course it looks better for motorised and mechanised units, which have vehicles to lug reloads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest solution aside from simply shooting more missiles at the target may be to simply add a 4" section of missile for a dispenser filled with chaff optimized for MMW / APS engagement radar wavelengths and poff it just outside of the APS engagement envelope during the terminal dive.

This can however be countered by tracking the munition on approach and estimating the flight path of the incoming munition, and firing at the predicted location.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest solution aside from simply shooting more missiles at the target may be to simply add a 4" section of missile for a dispenser filled with chaff optimized for MMW / APS engagement radar wavelengths and poff it just outside of the APS engagement envelope during the terminal dive.

 

I suppose I was going to bring up something similar. Is it possible to somehow 'Jam' (raspberry or otherwise) the sensors on the APS?

 

Also, wasn't there an RPG of some sort that was designed to counter an APS by firing two separate projectiles on the same trajectory, intending that the first one would be intercepted but the APS wouldn't be 'nimble' enough to stop the second one?

 

 

 

-K

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The simplest solution aside from simply shooting more missiles at the target may be to simply add a 4" section of missile for a dispenser filled with chaff optimized for MMW / APS engagement radar wavelengths and poff it just outside of the APS engagement envelope during the terminal dive.

 

I suppose I was going to bring up something similar. Is it possible to somehow 'Jam' (raspberry or otherwise) the sensors on the APS?

 

Also, wasn't there an RPG of some sort that was designed to counter an APS by firing two separate projectiles on the same trajectory, intending that the first one would be intercepted but the APS wouldn't be 'nimble' enough to stop the second one?

 

 

 

-K

 

 

RPG-30

 

%D0%A0%D0%9F%D0%93-30-%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8E

Link to post
Share on other sites

This can however be countered by tracking the munition on approach and estimating the flight path of the incoming munition, and firing at the predicted location.

 

Maneuvering missiles then, à la AShMs, which are facing the same point defense problems? Though I guess that adds yet more mass, and there are limits to portable systems. Which gets us back to drones - develop essentially self-propelled ATGM launchers on tracks or legs as an extension of the packbot/mechanical mule idea?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This can however be countered by tracking the munition on approach and estimating the flight path of the incoming munition, and firing at the predicted location.

 

Maneuvering missiles then, à la AShMs, which are facing the same point defense problems? Though I guess that adds yet more mass, and there are limits to portable systems. Which gets us back to drones - develop essentially self-propelled ATGM launchers on tracks or legs as an extension of the packbot/mechanical mule idea?

 

The intercept happens too late and with too much margin for error for this to be feasible.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good question and something I was considering asking myself some time back. Maybe we'll see an increasing use of things like anti-material rifles (.50 Cal and above), even the WW2-era PTRS and PTRD were put to good use in the Ukraine. Weapons that use 14.5mm KPV rounds may not be capable against your top of the line IFV but what about the APS elements? Are they armoured enough to protect them from AMR rounds?

 

I'm not sure that saturating a single target with a bunch of single-shot weapons such as the M72 LAW would be a good idea. Especially for a smaller unit, only a limited number of weapons would surely be available...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is any APS currently fielded able to intercept a thrown molotov cocktail? Or a grenade or satchel charge tossed to bounce off the commander's chest into the open hatch?

 

Is any APS able to counter an RPG launched from a basement window into a tank's underbelly, as seen in Chechnya?

 

There are admittedly non-APS defenses against all of these threats, but they require disciplined use of screening infantry, or an alert human loader manning a machine gun and watching the rear and flanks. These things don't always happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking an AHEAD type 120mm round that would release its cargo well short of the enemy tank, blind it and smash up any APS launchers covering that arc. In the long run, it's got to be swarming drones with AI, but there would be nothing stopping the tank releasing or being accompanied by a defensive drone swarm.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best defense against infantry-fired AT missiles is friendly infantry and combined arms. An unsupported tank is like heavy knights of old; the only question is how many enemies they take with them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is very simple, and to find it, you must first realize that ground combat and naval combat are one and the same. The only difference is that currently naval combat is at least 50 years ahead of ground combat.

 

When AShM missiles, point defenses, and ECM made their debut, the process of engagement became very simple - saturate the enemy. Ship designs focused on increasing the number of available AShMs, point defense munitions, number of types of weapons that can be used to saturate an enemy, and on a larger scale the number of ships had to be increased, scale of formations increased, and payload of support ships increased.

 

There was only one purpose to all this - as soon as missiles start flying, your side will have more than the other.

 

Recently, the number of available AShMs became less important. The various munitions on ships became more versatile, e.g Tomahawks and SM-2 as secondary and tertiary AShMs. Saturation can now come from many directions.

 

 

Infantry engaging tanks may not be a desirable path. I believe that given the increased lethality of tanks and associated AFVs, plus the increased payload required to defeat them, and finally the unchanging capacity of the average infantryman to carry not weight but volume, tells that the infantry's place in the modern battlefield is shrinking, albeit not to be confused with outright removal.

 

Infantry, instead, will be given more networked tools to use against tanks, that will require separate platforms.

 

Networked fires will give infantry the tools to engage tanks with sufficient capacity to saturate them.

 

The key player will become artillery, and a process that truly drives this concept forward is the increasing share of guided munitions. As short range rockets and shells also becoming precise, they can be used as anti tank weapons.

 

 

The infantry's tools will remain as following:

1)Fire network.

2)ATGMs - however, mostly as a precision guided munition rather than only an anti tank weapon.

3)Personal AT weapons such as AT grenades.

4)Conventional tube and rocket artillery.

5)Loitering munitions.

6)Dedicated swarm weapons.

7)Modular UGVs.

 

I think we'll see a resurgence of AT grenades because of their low signature.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Somewhat but not quite on-topic I know but do APS systems work against tank main gun rounds? Carefully concealed anti-tank guns/towed artillery might work as well (in direct fire) but that's a whole different can of worms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The answer is very simple, and to find it, you must first realize that ground combat and naval combat are one and the same. The only difference is that currently naval combat is at least 50 years ahead of ground combat.

(...)

 

I wrote something similar a while ago

https://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.com/2008/05/technology-creeps-according-to-patterns.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is any APS currently fielded able to intercept a thrown molotov cocktail? Or a grenade or satchel charge tossed to bounce off the commander's chest into the open hatch?

 

Is any APS able to counter an RPG launched from a basement window into a tank's underbelly, as seen in Chechnya?

 

There are admittedly non-APS defenses against all of these threats, but they require disciplined use of screening infantry, or an alert human loader manning a machine gun and watching the rear and flanks. These things don't always happen.

Especially if you have no loader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...