"State of the AT Lethality vs AFV Protection Arms Race" Topic

The death of the MBT has been written about repeatedly. First it was the ATGM. Then it was the attack helicopter. And then it was PGM arty rounds. Now it's drone networks and dispersed ATGM launchers.

QRF's recent release of a complete line of Stryker models and my love affair with light AFVs mounting serious AT weapons got me to thinking about the ongoing arms race between AFV protection and AT weapon penetration. (NOTE: whatever the course of this discussion I shall be buying some of the QRF Strykers…the Stryker MGS and AT vehicles are just too cool looking to pass up!)

Several years ago militia in Lebanon held off an Israeli armored incursion using a combination of RPGs and ATGMs firing from concealed positions. The west and Israel even lodged protests with the Russians for providing advanced ATGMs to the Lebanonese militia.

During the initial invasion of Iraq a light infantry recon unit travelling in humvees and armed only with Javelins defeated an attack by Iraqi main battle attacks across open ground.

In Syria, TOW missiles are being used to destroy Syrian government tanks with regularity. The weapons are proving so effective that the rebels are begging for more and going to great lengths to keep them operational (e.g. rigging home-made power sources for the launch system).

We have also heard stories of AFVs taking multiple hits from some RPGs but it's not always clear that the weapons were state of the art or used properly (e.g. firing at ranges before the warhead could arm or not actually arming the weapon).

What is the state of AT lethality versus AFV protection, especially as it pertains to light infantry and light AFVs? When DEFENDING against heavy armor, do well concealed light infantry and highly mobile light armor have the upper hand?

Are we approaching the point at which heavy armor like that of a modern MBT is more a liability than an asset if it can be penetrated by the typical AT weapon wielded by light troops?

Is full frontal protection against a 30-35mm autocannon sufficient for "heavy armor" if most other AT weapons can penetrate it so easily?

Or does being able to defeat 125mm rounds fired by the AFVs of 3rd-rate powers (e.g. Iraqi T-72s vs American Abrams) still have value for western forces?

IIRC the IDF is working on a system that will intercept incoming RPGs, etc., … Like in the Hammer's Slammers stories.

And IIRC the West is working on going to up gun the 120 to 130 ?

The ITOW is a real killer, I don't know how someone is going to beat that. Beside hiding behind very solid cover. And even that is not 100%. Few things are on the deadly modern battlefield.

Also as I noted on another threat. Like the M2 IFV's 25mm cannon. That should not be used to go after heavier AFVs. But does fine against lighter armor. It may make the heavier armor button up. Knock out some exposed systems, etc., … IFVs with cannons and AT missiles should not be used as an MBT. They just don't have the survivability, etc.,…

The AT missiles are there to get the IFV out of trouble with MBTs. Or maybe an AT Ambush. If there is no other choice. But in many cases it has to be a "Shoot & Scoot !". And use terrain to mask your egress. Don't think because you have all that firepower your going to go toe-to-toe with an MBT.

Back in the 101, '80-'83. We had an entire AT Company. With a TOW mounted on the old M151 Jeep. And there is a version of the HMMWV that mounts the TOW now. But an improved version of TOW/ITOW. Those Jeeps were good for an AT Ambush to Shoot & Scoot. Or to be well dug in for the defense. And the TOW could be dismounted if need be.

However, we fight by using the combined arms concept. Gunships, CAS, FA, etc. can take on AFVs too. So that can be used to add to you AT killing ability. One of the most powerful "asset" the combat leader has is a radio that can call-in all kinds of nasty firepower if need be. Gunships packing TOWs or Hellfires were designed to take on the massive WP armor formations flooding across the [inter]German border.

Also the light 25-35mm cannon and TOWs can do a lot of damage to most structures as well. Especially the mud brick structures we find in some locations in the current conflict areas. Also note an M2 .50cal will chew up most bricks like hard candy. And can take on most light armor, like a BMP/BMD. We'd practice with the .50 on plywood BMP flank aspects. Not to mention what is would do to a BMP/BMD with a rear shot.

Pretty much, if you can see it, it's dead in most cases.

Makes me wonder why they even bother with armor, and perhaps the US Army is rethinking that too, since they want to bring back the jeep.

Armor is useful against "small arms" (really small, not including the latest HMGs, or .50 cal rounds), and shrapnel.

Some of the light infantry were switching to dune buggies, as I recall.

The Israelis do have that protection system, and it works, as does slat armor against RPGs supposedly too.

Still, I think lighter, smaller, faster is probably best right now.

Even MRAPS and M1A2 tanks aren't proof against large IEDs.

Those little hover boards and Star Wars like speeder bikes seem like the way forward to me, if they can make enough of them, and just perfect them a bit more. Flying at NOE or tree-top level, very quickly will negate many of the mines and IEDs, and permit rapid advancement to quickly outflank enemies.

Of course, combat robots will help too.

I've always said I'd wish my Infantry Squads had a couple of T2s in each Fire Tm … I'm still not sold on the hover board.

Flying at NOE or tree-top level, very quickly will negate many of the mines and IEDs, and permit rapid advancement to quickly outflank enemies.

That is what gunships do already … "Air Cav !" "Airmobile !"