"ATGM vs fortifications " Topic

In recent conflicts Western forces have found that ATGMs make decent, if expensive, anti-fortification weapons. Did the Soviet forces do the same during their sojourn in Afghanistan/Russians in Chechnya?

I have read about Soviets using RPGs against stone forts in Afghanistan, but I don't remember reading about them using any kind of guided ordnance.

So the BMP-2/BMD-2 would be forced to use the 30mm chaingun rather than the AT-4? Probably a non-issue with the BMP-1/BMD-1 with the 73mm main gun?

I don't know about proportions but plenty of BMP were the 1 models so they'd have had quite a bit of direct fire HE capability in the platoon.

Didn't the automatic grenade launchers also see service in Afghanistan?

Dunno about ATGMs, but BMP-1 (as well as tanks and BTR-60 PB) had enormous difficulty elevating their guns to engage targets when fighting in the Afghan mountains. Latterly, BMP-2 and BTR-70 provided them with a high-angle capability, as did AGS-17 AGLs mounted on the back of various vehicles.

the russians developed a thermobaric head for the rpg7 specificaly for caves and bunkers as a result of the afghan war.

One of the biggest differences between Soviet and Western forces has indeed been the RPG-7. The availability of such a flexible direct-fire explosive weapon at platoon level gives Eastern-equipped forces quite a little firepower boost… in reality it has only been the poor skill of its users that hasn't driven home this fact more.

ATGMs are effective because they can be 'keyholed' by the guidance system… which is why we are now seeing more and more smaller-sized weapons systems.

As for the BMP-1 and -2, the bigger the cannon, the less elevation you can get (unless it is a dedicated system like an SPG) due to the turret size vs the weapon's breech mechanism striking against the vehicle and damaging the system if it goes too low.

That is why the Russians went to the trouble of putting ZU-23-2's on every flat vehicle they could, or putting aircraft rocket pods on top of tanks or BRDM-2s, because they could be elevated higher.

Also the reason the Russians quite happily use the ZSU-23-4 AA tank as a direct fire support weapon with or without the radar – as that thing literally chews away cover through sheer weight of fire.

From my reading, RPGs were commonly employed by VC/NVA against bunkers when assaulting fire support bases. While a single hit was unlikely to be effective, multiple RPG teams would concentrate their fire upon a specific bunker position until an accumulation of hits succeeded in destroying or collapsing and silencing it.

US infantry employed LAWs against small weapons bunkers.

B

We might also speculate that any time you put soldiers and explosives in the same sitution, one of said soldiers will find a use for one of said explosives :-)

I seem to recall 2 Para using Milans against Argentinian inf in 'entrenchments' at Goose Green?

Don't know if they hit anything though.

I agree with Weasel. American troops in Iraq were using very expensive Javelins against buildings. The Hussein brothers were killed by TOWs while hunkered down in their palace. The US military continues to develop (cheaper) man-portable weapons with enhanced effects against buildings and fortifications.

For wargame purposes I feel that you need to model differences between such weapons and more traditional close support guns like the Stryker MGS 105mm gun. We give ATGMs fewer dice to reflect their lower ROF and ammo supply compared to shells carried for weapons like the BMP-3's 100mm gun. First choice should be the purpose designed weapon but ATGMs certainly do in a pinch.

Yes, if you have an AT weapon, you can and will use it on a structure. If taking fire, etc. And in many cases it will do damage or destroy the structure based on size, etc., … And AFAIK, Russians, Muj, VC, and most ME Armies used RPGs on a variety of targets.

As noted Saddam's sons were in a hardened structure. And the 101 used TOWs to take care of them. Better to waste munitions than losing your troops lives. In any event.

Also the reason the Russians quite happily use the ZSU-23-4 AA tank as a direct fire support weapon with or without the radar – as that thing literally chews away cover through sheer weight of fire.

The US M2 .50 cal will do similar especially to the material use on many structures in Iraq, A'stan, etc. A .50 cal will chew up cinderblock bricks like candy.

I'm working on a convention game (using 5 Core Skirmish btw) set in the Soviet-Afghan war since I modeled the BMDs with the AT-5 Spandrel, the question would inevitably come up by a player if he could "waste" a few into a mud hut. I think Weasel has it.

That leads to a second question, during the mid to late phase of that conflict, did BMP/BMDs carry ATGMs if the locals didn't have tanks?

Troopwo who served in A'stan, with the Canadian Army, IIRC said similar. On another thread a ways back. Troops will be more than glad to "blow stuff up" if they are getting shot at. Or maybe even if they are not taking fire.

And based on my experiences, Rifle PL, in the 101, '80-'81, then later a Mech Co Cdr, '87-'89 with the Mech Bde of the 18th ABN Corps. Infantrymen like to "break things". And will use any firepower available to do it.

Now that being said, it is the responsibility of unit leaders to control fires. But if you are taking fire. The first thing you want to is to stop/suppress incoming fire. And if available, you will even call in mortars, FA, CAS etc. to make it stop. And the best way to make it stop is to kill those that are shooting at you and your comrades/troops.

As far as BMPs/BMDs packing ATGMs in the later phases. I'd think based on study of the USSR's tactics and troops, from the past and even Russians today. I would think just like all Infantrymen they would still pack ATGMs. As they would know how effective these weapons are against dug in or enemy in structures, etc. I have No anecdotal evidence of this. But generally Infantrymen will be Infantrymen …

I did a google image search and out of ten pictures of Bmps and one bmd none had missles in Afganistan. The BMD had a ground system set up on it, that was it as far as missles in pictures.

Good intel …

Chatticus- I'm interested in your comment that the RPG7 created a marked difference between Soviet and Western forces at platoon level- especially given the latter's widespread use of weapons such as the Carl Gustav and Panzerfaust 2 and 3 MAWs and the Dragon light ATGM, and all their successors- at the same level of issue.

Could you expand on why the RPG 7 made such a difference? It is the first time I've seen that asserted.

It's probably because of the flexibility of the RPG7. It has single and tandem HEAT warheads, HE-frag, thermobaric, and a dedicated bunker-buster.

RPG-7s are also about half the weight of a Panzerfaust 3 or M67 recoilless rifle, 4lbs lighter than the Carl Gustav, and 2lbs lighter than the SMAW.

Actually it's 1 RPG per squad:

+ 5 RPG-18s (1 for each rifleman excepting the RPG loader)

One "pipe" plus five "flies" equals a fair bit more firepower than earlier in the cold war.

As far as US Mech Inf Squads '84-'90. The 11 man squads in my Mech Plts consisted of 2 5 man Fire Tms + 1 SL.

These Squads were armed :

2 M203 GL (which could fire HEDP round capable of 50mm pen.)
2 M249 SAW
1 M47 Dragon MAW
1 M60 MG
[The Fire Tm either had the M47 or M60.]

The other 5 Squad members' primary weapon was the M16.

M72 LAWs could be issued as needed [along with grenades, M18 claymores, etc.]. The M47 and M60 A-Gunners had to pack extra ammo for each respectively.

Also the Mech Squad had an M2 .50cal mounted on the M113 APC. It could be dismounted, but usually only in the Defense. As it was much too heavy [128 lbs., IIRC] for dismounted movement.

That is a lot of firepower for an 11 man squad. And even with the WP, VC, NVA, etc. having the RPG in a squad.

Legion,

What did your platoon and company level TO&E look like?

Mech Plt = 3 11 Man Squads[as described in my previous post] + Plt HQ Section – 4-6 men, 4 M113s, 1 per Squad/HQ.

Mech Co. = 3 Plts [as above]

Plus 2 Co Cmd Tracks[M113s] > 1 Cdr's, 1 XO's + 1 HMMWV, 1 M35 2& 1/2 Ton Cargo Truck [with M2 50 cal.] with trailer.

14 M113s[each with M2 .50 cal.]Total in Mech Co.

1 Anti-Armor Section = 2 M901 ITVs[each with M60D MG]

Attached from HHC -

Medics with each Plt & Co HQ.

Manit./Recovery Section = 1 M113, 1 M578 VTR.

Attachments from outside BN – Based on mission …

1 Fire Spt Tm in M113 from FA BN. Forward Observers … 4-6 men. We usually always had FST attached.

1 CBT ENG Squad in M113 – 11 + CEs

1 ADA Team [Stinger] 2-3 men attached to Co HQ

When Cross Attached to Armor Bn. Usually trade 1 Mech Plt for 1 M60 MBT Plt.

So no company or battalion level mortars? I would have thought they'd have M113-mounted 81s at company and 120s at battalion.

How often did you trade with a tank unit and train as a combined arms team "Team Yankee" style? I know that was doctrine but my friends who served during the Cold War often mention that there was a big difference between official TO&E and doctrine and the realities of the army. One fellow I know took command of a rifle company that consisted of himself, a few LTs, and several sgts. This was soon after the draft ended and they were weeding out those who didn't want to be there. Soon after that recruits began filling his ranks, but for a while he was leading a squad-sized company!

I forgot we had an M113 Medic track from HHC's Medic Plt. Along with the Medics attached to the Inf Plts.

The M125, an M113 mounting an 81mm Mortar was removed from the Company. With the conversion from the "H" to "J" series [IIRC] MTO&E. The M125s' 81s were turned in to Div. And with the "H" to "J" conversion. Which occurred in @ '84-'85 (?) …
The Mech Plt went from 5 APCs to 4.

And the Mech Cos. in Mech Bns went from 3 Inf Cos. to 4. The M125s were used for these additional tracks required by the "J" series MTO&E. Thick plywood was mounted over the place where the 81 was. Making the M125 a "defacto" M113.

The Bn still had an M106, the M113 mounting 4.2 in. Mortar, Plt. For direct support of the Infantry as always. Never had any 120s. They may have come later ?

Also, an E Company was created with this conversion. It was an Anti-Armor Company with 3 or 4 M901 ITV Plts. And the Infantry Co. still kept it's M901 ITV Section. So as you can see, the US Mech Infantry Bn was prepared to "go bear hunting" WP AFVs. [Or Nork AFVs in the ROK]

The Bn also had a Scout Plt with 3 M113s and 3 M901 ITVs. These ITVs were not so much for killing AFVs. As they were there to get the Scout Plt "out of trouble". With the waves of WP Armor that would roll across the NATO borders. [or the Korean border !]

Cross Attaching with Armor was a standard. With this happening very often. On one Op, the Tank Bn had 2 Mech Inf Cos. crossed attached. And keeping two of it's Tank Cos. The two Tank Plts were cross attached, one each to the Mech Bns where the Mech Plts came from.

As a sidebar. The standard was you always cross-attached your best Plt or Co. to the other unit. I was always crossed-attached. But I'm sure it was that my Bn Cdr just wanted to get rid of me. And make me the Tank Bn Cdr's problem !

The Tank Bn was unique that it had 3 M60A1 Cos. and 1 M1IP Co. … The Tank Bn always kept the M1IP Co.

So as you can see, yes, the MTO&E conversion didn't always match the on paper MTO&E with the actual On Hand MTO&E. Until things were "stabilized" to match the "J" MTO&E, there were shortages. In men and equipment. I remember in the ROK. Even with the M125s to M113s "conversions". The Bn was still short M113s.

And when talking about Cold War shortages. In the 101 where I was first assigned as a Rifle PL. '80-'81. The Rifle Co. only had 2 of the 3 Inf Plts it was supposed to have based on that MTO&E.

But we still had an 81mm Mortar Plt. And many times when range firing. Myself or the other PL would be the "new" Mortar PL. Fortunately, we eventually got a real 2LT for the actual Mortar PL.

My Mech Co, '87-'89 had only 5 of the authorized 34 NVGs. And no ammo vests for the M203 gunners. And that was just the tip of the iceberg …

Not sure any of the arguments is convincing for the RPG7 superior status. Some Western weapons are a bit heavier, some a bit lighter, some a bit longer ranged, some a bit shorter, and equivalents for all the ammo options were available for various Western weapons except (I think) Thermobaric- but that was I understand deemed in Afghanistan too small to create a proper thermobaric effect and was withdrawn.

So the RPG7 was/is certainly a good weapon but I don't see that a claim that it gave particular superiority to the Sovs at small unit level stands up at all. Interested in any veteran views.

So the RPG7 was/is certainly a good weapon but I don't see that a claim that it gave particular superiority to the Sovs at small unit level stands up at all. Interested in any veteran views.

Very true … and I agree. Even back when I commanded a Mech Co. '87-'89 … we had a lot of firepower. Even though I was not a real fan of the M47 MAW Dragon. We'd make it work if need be when necessary. Plus an M2 .50 cal. will penetrate the flank of a BMP/BMD, etc., … Plus as I noted Ma Deuce will chew up cinderblock bricks, mud brick huts, etc., like candy.

And today with the Javelin, AT-4, and from what I understand the M72 LAW was being re-issued. So I'm sure that the Javelin and AT-4 are much better than the old M47 MAW. And there is no shortage of firepower available to US/NATO forces.

If anything as we see today, there are a lot of RPGs being used by the islamic jihadi terrorists in many locations. And there are many, many of them around, like the AK-47, AK-74, RPK, etc., etc., … We can thank the USSR/Russia for that.

So IMO … the RPG never did or does give the Russians or islamic jihadi terrorists any "edge" …