"ATGMs" Topic

I'm curious about the relative mobility of various ATGMs such as Dragon, TOW, and Javelin from the "man-portability" perspective. Opinions? Relative to 60mm, 81mm, and 120mm mortars?

Based on published data it looks like systems such as Dragon, MILAN, and Spigot or Saxhorn might be considered man-portable if rather heavy (like a 60mm mortar's components). Systems such as TOW seem too heavy for true portability.

TOW is portable by a crew (3-5 men). MILAN and Dragon are portable by 1 man, though if only 1 man there is only 1 shot.

@Sabre6…When you say TOW is "portable" by a crew, would cross-country mobility be comparable to systems such as 60mm mortars, 81mm mortars?

I ask because it's my understanding that in Vietnam 81mm mortars were sometimes considered too burdensome to haul around the jungle and were usually left at battalion HQ when a company went out in the bush (besides which arty and air could usually provide sufficient support).

Essentially I'm trying to rate ATGM mobility realtive to other systems in wargame terms (factoring in base-system + useful ammo load).

If a vehicle is around, the crew SHOULD use it. Otherwise the set up is @ 40-60 lbs per crewman. Yes it CAN be carried through the rough, and it is designed to paradrop.

METT-T will determine if it gets "humped"

From observation, I'd say medium ATGMs are about equivalent to 81mm mortars (maybe some little ones to 60mm). Big ones like TOW would be more like 120mm mortars.

Pretty sure Javelin is a 2-man crew.

Dragon has a reputation for being a pain in the butt.
-Kle.

Major,

3 CDO BDE took their Milans with them across 120 miles of rough terrain in 1982, so it can be done. Before you ask, they wanted them to use against bunkers rather than armour.

3rd Queens Bn in the 1980's used to fill their used Milan missile packs with sand and hump them around on ex – About a yard long and a diameter of 8 inches – they were heavy! But their AT troop was equipped with 1 tonne landrovers which weren't particularly useful cros country – (used to roll if you mounted the kerb), so they had to!
Kind Regards
Sparker

Major,
Sorry, just to clarify, by 1982 I am refering to the Falklands conflict, and the terrain there is as bad as you can get in terms of humping gear – lots of bogs and babys heads!
Sparker

"Essentially I'm trying to rate ATGM mobility realtive to other systems in wargame terms (factoring in base-system + useful ammo load"

The Dragon section of an infantry platoon consists of two gunners and two assitant gunners (on paper). Each man carries one missle and the rest of the sighting gear should be divided by the section. You should have four shots if the Dragon section is at full strength. I was The ONLY man in my platoon AT section so we had one shot.

The Dragon is portable and I was able to keep up on marches but as soon as they screamed double time I would fall behind men with lighter loads. (I made a personal vow to fire it at the first target I saw so I could be rid of the beast.)

I never saw anyone hump a TOW except to dismount it from a vehicle. How many shots the TOW had depended largely on the vehicle transporting it.

The first two years I was in the 82nd we had 81 mm mortars for a company level asset. We eventually switched to 60mm mortars and I beleive the deciding factor to switch was ammunition concerns. More ammunition can be humped for the 60 mm mortar.

If we had a truck then there was almost no limit to the ammunition available.

"Big ones like TOW would be more like 120mm mortars."

It appears that 120mm mortars are virtually static weapons, especially when one considers ammo weight. Are TOWs really that "heavy" or 120s really that "light"? Maybe a portability ranking would be helpful. Based on comments above, how would you (y'all) modify this:

1. 60mm mortar / light ATGM (eg Javelin/MILAN/Dragon)
2. 81mm mortar / heavy ATGM (eg TOW/AT5/AT14)
3. 120mm mortar

Should the heavy ATGMs slide between 2 and 3 ("2.5") or be moved to category 3 along with the 120s?

Should 120s have minimal portability or be completely static from that perspective? (assumes 1 stand = ~platoon…so should a 120mm platoon be able to drag their hardware around the wargames table, even if only VERY slowly cross-country.

120mm mortars are similar to towed artillery. For rules with platoons as elements I'd normally rule that they need a tow. IRL you might be able to drag the gear short distances, but nothing significant in game terms.

one more thing…given the scale of 1 stand = 1 platoon a lot of this has to do with doctrine and what's considered reasonable.

So, from a wargame perspective, it makes sense that if an airborne unit has company-level 81mm mortars they should be able to keep up cross country on the tabletop but maybe have some difficulty in rougher terrain.

Same goes for ATGMs. If doctrine expected heavy ATGMs to be air dropped with pure leg infantry then it would make sense they could keep up across relatively easy cross country marches. But if they're considered too heavy for that and their assigment at a given command level assumes the presence of transport then slower cross-country mobility across the tabletop might make sense.

"120mm mortars are similar to towed artillery. For rules with platoons as elements I'd normally rule that they need a tow. IRL you might be able to drag the gear short distances, but nothing significant in game terms."

Exactly the sort of insight I'm looking for!!! Thx!!!

The assessment of Western professionals that 120mm mortars are not man-portable would undoubtedly come as a surprise to those Afgans who, during the Soviet occupation, humped M1938 and similar Soviet 120mm mortars--with ammo--on little hikes in the hills.

Unfortunately for them, no-one told them that these were not man-portable.

Allen

The same goes for recoilless rifles and large-caliber anti-aircraft machineguns, substantially heavier than TOW components.

Seems I recall that no-one told the Vietnamese about these things, either.

Allen

Another interesting fact that I remember from my time in the US Army '95-'98 is that we were told that the TOW wire-guided missles couldn't be fired over water and/or power lines. Not sure how much water it took to kill the guidance, but it's interesting and I have never seen it represented in modern rules.

One of my buddies, also ex-Army, successfully argued against the use of them by another player against his AFVs in a miniatures game. The GM was shocked but all the vets around the table seemed to nod in agreement that you couldn't fire a TOW across a river.

Doesn't apply to mobility, but I found it interesting. All of the TOW teams I encountered were Humvee or 113 mounted, though in our Cavalry squadron the only TOWs we carried were on the Scout's Bradleys. The Scouts themselves carried AT-4s(much more man portable/manageable).

Ed G.

I thought the Afghans used mules and camels to transport heavy weapons while the Vietnamese used water buffalo.

How many, "extra" men would be needed to hump the heavier systems?

In response to Allen – I think he has a point – they ARE man-portable to some degree – however, in terms of your time scale that is the issue. Afghans and Vietnamese were able to move very heavy equipment over long distances which many armies doctrines considered NON-man-portable. So the question is HOW FAR can they move in the given time scale for the game – and the answer all depends on your time scale – is a turn 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 1 hour – makes a huge difference. If your time scale is short – in the minutes range – the answer is they are non-man-portable for game purposes as the unit would move microscopic amounts by comparison with other units each turn.

Milan Javelin Dragon are all pretty man portable--I would say TOW would need to be on a light vehicle (or a heavy one if you want!!)
Templar why couldn't TOWs be fire across water??/ Seems a big handicap if trying to knock out T72s attacking over the Weser???

Probably a real snoozer to most, but this declassified hostry of the TOW is interesting in showing the struggle, and failure, to meet the desired weight limits:

PDF link

Allen

"Hostry"? History!

Wire-guided ATGMs, unsurprisingly, trail a wire between the launcher/guidance system and the missile. Control is lost if the wire dips to contact water or a power line. The TOW is not the only wire-guided ATGM with this limitation.

Allen

Tow is composed of 6 major subsystems. At the Armor School they trained us by dividing us into 6 man groups. Everybody picked up a piece in order and the system was put together, then taken down. You did this 6 times until you had handled every part. It is man portable and I have two on ground mounts for my wargame army. But I don't think I would want to hump it around. Interestingly, there is a picture of the Marines in Lebanon with a TOW launcher on its tripod on a rooftop. Eventually I realized they were using the 13power sight/site as a spotting scope.

Oh, the reason for not firing the TOWs over water was the possibility of the wires dragging in the soup and shorting out the missile. I assume the same can be said for all the wire guided systems.

I have a book on the Israeli-Arab wars which states that earlier wire guided ATGMs had trouble when fired across water (especially salt water!). But another book about tank warfare states that these problems have been worked out and recent wire-guided ATGMs don't have this problem.

Regarding time scale, ground scale, and scope of forces think anything up to one reinforced battalion per side at roughly 100-125m per inch and 1 stand = 1 platoon.

I have no idea what that means with respect to strict 70s style 1 turn = x minutes (which can often lead down a rabbit hole). So, for me the wargame issue is this: would a battalion commander expect to relocate heavier assets a significant distance (given the ground scale) such as 120mm mortars within the context of a battalion-level fight which might take place over the course of a long day (based on memoirs/unit histories I've read).

I was a TOW – 0352 in the marines. They aint as easy to carry as you think. found that out the hard way. Its not the weight but climbing hills is a pain. They cant fire over water that is over a 1000 meters (my instructors said shorter to be safer) because the wires hit the water.

As mentioned, the TOW is dismountable, but I wouldn't want to have to carry one around all day, or even assist with that.

I do recall seeing them fired from a dirt berm at a building reportedly housing Saddam's kids, so they can be taken off the vehicle.

As mentioned above, a short carrying distance would be best, e.g. a short distance to a covered firing position, or into a building.

Intersting point about the Afghans and 120s, you are quite correct about this of course.

I wonder if it is partly a matter of crew expectations? I've come across 81mm mortar crew complaining about having to man pack their gear (main gripe being shifting the ammo), similarly tripod MGs.

My understanding is that 120s are regarded by as non man-portable by the majority of regular armies. Anyway they need tows in Panzerblitz, and that is good enough for me;-)

"would a battalion commander expect to relocate heavier assets a significant distance (given the ground scale) such as 120mm mortars within the context of a battalion-level fight"

If it is a formal assault I'd be astonished if they relocated any of the heavy support weapons deployed for fire support, particularly if they had major stocks of ammo dumped. Some weapons may be tasked to move up to consolidate on the objective, but they wouldn't normally be assigned to the initial fireplan. Significant enemy CB capability, counter-mortar radar and/or a mobile battle rather than a prepared assault might change this of course. These things may vary by army, time period, doctrine and situation. I am mainly thinking of leg infantry assaults here, 1916-1982 ish.

Was the TOW wire not waterproofed or insulated in some way? Does that also mean it wouldn't work in rain???

Apparently, at least the early variants of the missile wouldn't work in water, since I recall reading about that eons ago too.

Not sure about rain, or thick fog. Maybe some degradation in the signal processing and responsiveness.

I would think that more modern versions of the missile, as well as others would have been able to address the problem. Afterall, many nations use ROV's underwater, at great depths, with no problems, and they are all wire guided.

Afterall, many nations use ROV's underwater, at great depths, with no problems, and they are all wire guided.

Using plastic insulation around the wire goes a long way. Telephone cable can also be laid underwater without issues.

However, the insulation adds bulk and mass to the wire, which can be an issue with a missile. Besides, the need to be able to release the wire while moving at high speed is another issue.

Using wireless guidance would avoid the problem.

Griefbringer

When I was in the 101st, 2/502 Inf.,we deployed to Somalia in 1985,we had 2 TOW teams from our HHC company accompany us,on FOOT! Our TOW's at that time were jeep,M151, mounted.
We all saw them before we deployed saying,you've got to be kidding!

Bob

I imagine when you purchase from the lowest bidder, some capabilities get left by the wayside, or the end product proves to be less capable than hoped.

Still, not being able to fire the missiles over a stream, pond, lake, river; in rain or heavy fog; or when the enemy uses a super-soaker water gun on the guidance wires would severely limit options.

Some SS-11's and SS-12's, which if I recall correctly are forerunners to the TOW system, are able to be launched from missile boats at sea, so shielding them from water can be done, if desired.

Maybe the instructors are just being overly cautious.

Wireless would seem to be a good idea, at first glance, but brings up a whole host of other problems, e.g. ECM, ECCM, ECCCM, ad nauseum; not to mention the problems with someone figuring out how to tap into the guidance signals, and directing them to be turned back towards the firing unit, or other friendly troops.

That would be similar to the struggle in WWII for the supremacy of radar, and radar countermeasures during the night bombing campaign over Europe.

Interesting, I was just looking at mortars for a different thread.
The Yugoslav 120mm M74 mortar, which was considered light, has the following characteristics:
Weight in firing position – 105kg
weight with bogie, whatever that may be 170kg
weight of barrel with breeching 25,3kg
weight of bipod 22kg
of base plate 43kg

The crew is 5 men. It can be towed or carried in parts
It can use light (12,6kg) and heavy (16kg) HE shells.

The Yugoslav army also had a heavy 120mm mortar.

Ok, I can just about imagine the crew of five being able to man pack the 120 M74 (along with all their other gear), but how many of those 16kg shells would they be able to carry as well? One each??

Heh, no mention of it. Perhaps you could encourage civilians to help? Or simple infantrymen, pack animals?
Interesting what one might think of when in need. The partisans used to execute strategic maneuvers and pull their tanks with oxen to forward positions because of the lack of fuel. The bonus was the enemy would not hear them approaching.

A serious omission – the tanks were Ansaldo

Wireless would seem to be a good idea, at first glance, but brings up a whole host of other problems, e.g. ECM, ECCM, ECCCM, ad nauseum; not to mention the problems with someone figuring out how to tap into the guidance signals, and directing them to be turned back towards the firing unit, or other friendly troops.

True. Using laser-guidance would probably be a better alternative.

Griefbringer

"Perhaps you could encourage civilians to help? Or simple infantrymen, pack animals"

When I was in the 82nd there was a BRIEF experiment where each infantry man was expected to hump one round for the mortar platoon (just like the Viet Cong…) Our officers quickly figured out the only way it would work is if we were setting up for a planned attack and had time to drop the ammunition off next to the mortars. The idea was scrapped in a few days.