A modern anti-tank gun might resemble the French LG105 Mk I.
A firing platform is lowered automatically when the trail legs are opened, so it only takes 30 seconds to bring the weapon in and out of action.
Added 2-5-02
Updated 24-4-18
Most Russian mechanized infantry (“motor-rifle”), motorized infantry and infantry divisions have an anti-tank battalion. Often these battalions can also be found down at brigade level too.
According to FM 100-2-3, motor-rifle regiments began to add anti-tank guns to their anti-tank missile battery in the 1980s.
The structure of these battalions is worth studying. They usually include:
The exact organization can vary. One version is shown here.
The anti-tank guns are of particular interest since in many modern armies towed anti-tank guns have been entirely replaced by ATGWs and are considered by many to be obsolete.
ATGMs can engage targets at ranges of 3,000 metres or more but are not without their drawbacks.
They are vulnerable to countermeasures and have long flight times.
Many models have a minimum range of at least 50 metres.
Long-range systems are supposed to be supported by infantry anti-tank weapons but these usually only have an effective range of around 400 metres.
In the Gulf it was found that long-range missiles were most effective if complemented by the high-velocity guns of tanks, especially if the enemy had closed to within 2,000 metres but was beyond infantry ATW range.
The guns of the Russian anti-tank battalion provide the same capability as the tank-guns without the unit relying on expensive MBTs that may be needed elsewhere.
A tank force will often be accompanied by more lightly armoured threats such as reconnaissance vehicles and infantry carriers. An anti-tank gun is a more effective and economical means to destroy such threats and frees missile systems to deal with more heavily armoured tanks.
Most anti-tank gun designs can manage a rate of fire of around 8-12 rounds per minute, much higher than ATGW systems.
The Russian anti-tank battery described is a fairly small formation. Six guns, seven prime-movers, a medium-truck and a trailer.
“Classic” anti-tank guns such as the German PAK-36 and British six-pounder could be hidden under a small bush and wheeled around the battlefield by a couple of men.
Guns of the power needed to kill a modern MBT need to be much larger but the Russians appreciate that such weapons can still be very effective in the defence of a static position.
Their anti-tank gun batteries are often used to guard the flank of a formation.
Modern Russian ATGs are capable of firing their own guided projectiles, extending their range to 5,000 metres. They can also be used for indirect fire with ranges as long as 8,200 metres or 12,200 metres.
The Russian M1944/BS-3 rifled 100mm gun that predates the smooth-bore T-12/MT-12 was designed as both an anti-tank gun and a field piece and differs from the T-12/MT-12 by having an elevation of +45° and a maximum range of 21,000 metres. The Chinese use a version of this gun in border artillery regiments and the Czechs have a similar weapon, the M53.
The 2A45M uses the same three trail design as the D-30 howitzer, not only giving 360° traverse but also making the weapon a more manageable tow.
Is there a case for anti-tank gun batteries in a modern western army?
The capability to supplement missile systems has already been mentioned.
Any position held by infantry will be greatly reinforced by the assignment of just one anti-tank gun. Such guns would also strengthen a position against other forms of attack.
Intriguingly, this article notes that direct-fire artillery was often more effective than tanks during the battle for Berlin.
Need to control a crossroads or mountain pass? Need to defend an airfield against ground and air assault? All these are jobs for an anti-tank gun section.
Anti-tank guns don’t just have a defensive role.
The German 88mm was a much larger weapon than the current Russian guns but crews often used these is a very aggressive manner. It was once common for such weapons to advance just behind the infantry and armour and to quickly deploy to provide supporting fire whenever needed.
Historically, anti-tank defences have often been most effective if they waited until close-range to engage tanks. Camouflaged positions were often selected so the sides and rear of tanks could be targeted.
How practical this will be with larger modern anti-tank guns remains to be seen. The long minimum range of may ATGM systems is a related concern.
What form would a modern anti-tank gun system take?
A modern anti-tank gun might resemble the French LG105 Mk I. A firing platform is lowered automatically when the trail legs are opened, so it only takes 30 seconds to bring the weapon in and out of action. |
The 105mm ATG will mainly be used with APFSDS, HEAT and HESH (HEP) rounds.
The HEAT round may be of MP-AT configuration with a proximity fuse for use against helicopters.
HESH rounds are proven vehicle-killers and bunker-busters, and often eliminate the need for separate HE rounds.
Rounds such as WP and smoke may also be needed, and another possibility is for CS-filled chemical rounds.
The APERS round developed for the M68/L7 contained 5,000 12 gr flechettes. At 300 metres from the burst point the flechettes cover an arc 94 metres across. Generally, however, anti-tank guns should relocate before infantry get within canister range.
Rounds such as the 105mm TPDS-T may be used in situations where collateral damage is a concern.
 The Austrian Experimental ATG N-105 Gun in the 80s mounted a L7 105mm tank-gun on a carriage with a long-recoil mechanism. It could be handled by a 6-man crew. |
Other than the experimental Austrian N-105 gun (above), I’m not aware of the L7/M68 gun being used in any other applications other than as a vehicle armament, so I do not have any data about its range when fired at high elevations.
The ranges I have for indirect-fire from tanks are for HESH rounds at 732 m/s, which is not representative of the full potential of the weapon.
Because they are designed to flatten on impact, HESH rounds are made with thin walls and this limits the maximum-velocity at which they can be fired.
We can gain some impression of how the 105mm L7 might perform by looking at its closest equivalent, the D-10 rifled 100mm gun used on the T-55. The same ammunition is used by the Russian M1944 (BS-3) and Czech M53 100mm guns.
Firing the 15.6 kg frag-HE round at 900 m/s at a maximum elevation of 18º, a T-55 has an indirect fire range of 14,600 metres.
The M53 and M1944 have a elevation of 42-45º and have a maximum range of 21,000 metres with the same round at the same muzzle velocity.
Several nations produce HE rounds for the L7 gun. These range in weight from 16.6 to 27 kg and are fired at muzzle velocities of up to 850 m/s.
It seems reasonable to assume that mounted on a towed carriage capable of high elevations, the L7 gun should have a range of at least 20,000 metres. For comparison, the 105mm M119 gun fires the 14.97 kg M760 HE round at 633 m/s to 14,500 metres.
Having a six-gun anti-tank gun battery available will prove useful in many operations other than anti-armour.
Such a battery would be part of a divisional or corps controlled anti-tank battalion which includes its own surveillance and scouting capabilities.
A possible structure would be.
Each gun section has one or more machine gun teams for local defence and the prime-mover is also armed with a HMG. The HMG can be dismounted or fired from the vehicle and can also be used against light-vehicles and helicopters.
The battery commander’s vehicle doubles as a spare prime-mover.
The battery also has vehicles and trailers for ammo and other equipment.
Gun battery will be either M113 or HMMWV-based.
Some Russian ATGMs are available with thermobaric warheads, so have broader applications than just anti-tank use.
The anti-tank battalion is a good candidate for equipping with EFOG-M. This would give the battery a capability of striking at targets in excess of 8-10 km range.
The battery would probably have several types of missile, based on the same airframe. This would include fibre-optically-guided, wire-guided, laser-guided and even unguided “dumb” rockets. There would also be a range of different warhead types.
The M901 Improved TOW vehicle only has two launch-tubes, and current TOW-armed HMMWVs use a single-tube launcher.
A better system would be to use four to six tubes like the BRDM.
Different types of missile could be held ready to launch, or several “fire and forget” missiles fired at once.
The HMMWV-mounted Hellfire demonstrated a suitable launcher and the XM44 HMMWV used with EFOGM could be modified to work with other missile types.
The missile platoon also needs some form of cannon armament to destroy vehicles such as trucks and jeeps. This may be done by arming some of the vehicles with 30mm ASP cannon, or may involve vehicles mounting 40mm or 57mm guns.
Another option is that the unit could operate at least one lightweight scout helicopter from the back of a truck.
It’s possible that the RPV or helicopters could also launch ATGMs.
Calling this an anti-tank or anti-armour battalion is a little deceptive, since systems such as the guns and EFOG-M have far wider applications.
If someone comes up with a better name, let me know.
My best effort is Gun and Missile Battalion, which can at least be shortened to “GamBi”.
Given the versatility of these weapons, it may be more appropriate to call them the “Multi-Role Gun: Towed”.
There are two options for deploying the anti-armour battalions.
One is to include them as part of the TOE of a division.
The other is to have them as corps-controlled formations and assign them to divisions or brigades that face a considerable armoured threat.
This latter option would also allow the unit to be assigned to help units that encounter special situations. Both the guns and the EFOG-Ms of the battalion would prove useful in the mountains of Afghanistan.
RefEmery Nelson has long been an advocate of providing troops with towed gun systems.
It was he that made me aware that anti-tank guns have applications other than destroying tanks and have some advantages over tanks and assault-guns. He comments:
“Phil, liked the AT gun stuff quite a bit. Gives some depth to a largely misunderstood subject. It’s an odd paradox that rich western armies are rapidly shrinking and may find the need for cheap and easily deployable towed guns if we are forced on to the defensive in future conflicts. The Whermacht 88s prolonged the war for a considerable time and although not the ideal weapon for offensive action there’s nothing better for stopping armor offensives, controling LOCs and protecting flanks during rapidly moving but limited offensives. The idea that a tank is just as good assumes that we have lots of POL and spare parts to keep them going. Although western armies traditionally don’t worry much about logistics, if the trend towards light expeditionary units (like those in Afghanistan) continues, we must think about ways to increase firepower with the limited transport available to us. AT Guns may have a place.”
The Starstreak ADA missile has recently been demonstrated to be a very effective anti-tank weapon.
In this light, I suggest that the above ADA platoon be expanded to battery-strength and equipped with Starstreak-armed vehicles.
The battalion would therefore have three main batteries:
Apache Longbow is planned to make use of a millimetric radar-guided version of Hellfire, and it is possible that the Hellfire-equipped vehicles could have the same capability, rather like this Russian system.
The mortar section of the battalion can also utilize guided-projectiles for capability against moving targets.
While towed anti-tank guns do have a place on the modern battlefield, it is unlikely that the US Army would be willing to adopt a towed direct-fire system.
I have suggested a possible design for a lightweight, low-profile tank-destroyer but such a vehicle comes with its own problems.
Many commanders will attempt to use tank-destroyers as tanks, then deride the concept for not performing in a role it was not designed for.
A more prudent idea may be to provide the anti-armour battalion/company with light-tanks to serve in the tank-destroyer role.
Vehicles such as the M8 AGS, CV90105, CV90120 and Sprut-SD are possible candidates.
Such an approach has several advantages, such as having a vehicle platform common to other units, simplified logistics and maintenance.
This suggests an anti-armour formation that has a passing resemblance to a heavy cavalry troop in structure.
Mixed detachments of tank-hunters and destroyers would be attached to other formations or positions that needed reinforcement.
The missiles of the hunters would engage distant, heavily armoured or precision targets while the destroyers would provide local defence, engage nearer or softer targets and mop up.
By the Author of the Scrapboard : | |
|---|---|
 | Attack, Avoid, Survive: Essential Principles of Self Defence Available in Handy A5 and US Trade Formats. |
 | |
 | Crash Combat Fourth Edition Epub edition Fourth Edition. |
 | |
 | |
