Jump to content

Tanks: Why Not To Mess With Them


Baker

Recommended Posts

Yes it is. Sides does nothing to a T72, unless you hit its tracks and disable it.

 

You need to hit it from the rear for it to have an effect.

 

Not exactly a great example this video :)

See for yourselves - place a T72 on the editor, grab a AT4 and hit it from behind -- it'll go up in one shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thankfully the purposes I believe was to become familair with the AT4, and how it works.

 

Had the first person taken out the armour from the rear I'm not sure we'd have much to shoot at.

At least we are aware that we ideally need to hit the tank at its rear for the best possible take-down

 

I certainly learnt something about the AT4 in-game last night (e.g. setting the range on the thing, as I've always just guessed previously and aim higher/lower etc in the hope I'd hit the target; and also how to go prone with the thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious why do we use AT4?

 

Present UK Army rather use NLAW and Javelin than American ILAW.

We mostly DO use the NLAW - but it will attack center of mass. Thus you can't use it against dug-in vehicles.

Today's NLAW has a top attack capability AFAIK. Thus it is vastly superior. Also it's a necessary compromise for gameplay, in my opinion, since the NLAW is guided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M72 has been reintroduced by the BAF especially for Afghanistan type conflicts where enemy armor is not really a threat, though it has been redesignated the Light Anti-Structures Missile (LASM). Primarily for use on bunkers or light structures and the light weight means a soldier can carry 2 of them vs 1 AT-4 or NLAW on a patrol. As we are a light infantry unit that shouldn't expect to engage heavy armor at all perhaps these would be more appropriate to carry (and they're alot lighter!) if each man carries one (except machinegunners) or the current AT guys carry 2 of these you should be just as capable of dealing with light vehicles as you are now, plus have more launchers available for clearing out dug in enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M72 has been reintroduced by the BAF especially for Afghanistan type conflicts where enemy armor is not really a threat, though it has been redesignated the Light Anti-Structures Missile (LASM). Primarily for use on bunkers or light structures and the light weight means a soldier can carry 2 of them vs 1 AT-4 or NLAW on a patrol. As we are a light infantry unit that shouldn't expect to engage heavy armor at all perhaps these would be more appropriate to carry (and they're alot lighter!) if each man carries one (except machinegunners) or the current AT guys carry 2 of these you should be just as capable of dealing with light vehicles as you are now, plus have more launchers available for clearing out dug in enemy.

 

What this man said!

 

Not only that but we have 1 FLIGHT - Make use of the asset against particularly difficult tagets (they are in effect our FSG until we grow large enough to have a a dedicated FSG type group)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The age-old M72 comes with a myriad of warheads to enable more roles, unfortunately in Arma there's just one AFAIK.

 

I think it's a problem that we equip for one paradigm - the Afghanistan 'real' layout - but are expected to take on threats from the first Gulf war and prior. Adapting many small launchers for an entire squad is the 80's kind of tactic. Not opposed to it, mind.

 

Reason I've pushed for the NLAW to remain in use is that in Arma, after you've fired, you're spotted. It's not like real life where you can hide - nor is there in most cases much defilade or cover. That makes it all the more important to use a sure-hit weapon, because you can engage to great distances (800m approx), even when something is moving. It is impossible to hit something with the AT4 unless you're closer than 200m, worse yet for small armoured cars.

 

Nothing against equipping more people with small launchers - on the contrary that's what I think we should do; but I'm a much greater fan of the 1IC looking at the OPORD, seeing the word "armour", and telling half his section to kit up with AT4s/M72s. Saves us the bother with templates.

If someone's allergic to crate-hugging when the specific reason is as mentioned, I think that runs contrary to common sense. If we simulate a unit engaged in Afghanistan/Iraq, and base our templates on that, any significant deviation warrants us adapting.

 

In short, yes I think we should adapt the M72 in half-section numbers. :) However,

* Few of our missions warrant this approach. Have it be a decision to make, not another template.

* Consider AT4CS or M72: Respectively 7.5 and 2.5kg

* More tubes in a section means more potential backblast. Therefore we need to incorporate rudimentary AT drills. Unless the AT4CS is adapted, in which case there's no real threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...) It is impossible to hit something with the AT4 unless you're closer than 200m, worse yet for small armoured cars.(...)

 

Well, I don't agree. With AT4 you actually can change ranging of that weapon up to 500 or 600 meters. All what you need is a bit time to estimate range to enemy target and good aim (read practice). I have done some tests of AT launchers and I had no problems with hitting stationary tank at 400 and more meters. However I had enough time to aim and knew distance.

 

From other hand you are right if you are talking about target in move. There NLAW or 1 Flight would be handy! :)

 

I think we should do some more training sessions in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't agree. With AT4 you actually can change ranging of that weapon up to 500 or 600 meters. All what you need is a bit time to estimate range to enemy target and good aim (read practice). I have done some tests of AT launchers and I had no problems with hitting stationary tank at 400 and more meters. However I had enough time to aim and knew distance.

 

From other hand you are right if you are talking about target in move. There NLAW or 1 Flight would be handy! :)

 

I think we should do some more training sessions in the future.

We are a milsim unit, and it's not realistic to hit tank-sized targets at 200m+ ranges with AT4s or M72s, because you can't find the range reliably without equipment that isn't used for those purposes (eg laser rangefinder).

I know the sight's range can be adjusted, but it is up to yourself to range it. That's why all the big guns today have spotting rounds.

Some insist that you use the map to find the distance, prepare and I don't know what. If they feel certain they can hit targets with the disposable tubes, they're welcome to take the AT role. I can't reliably hit things beyond 200m, and because Arma works the way it does, I won't take a shot I'm not reasonably certain of. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought at first the Carl Gustav might be too old for our needs, and it's been out of use with the British military for decades, but I wonder if that in part could be down to them not being needed in Iraq or Afghanistan. It could be worth using for this deployment as a support weapon for a section given the amount of armour.

 

As an aside, one thing that really needs to be issued to section leaders etc is a target designator. Given how we operate CAS ought to be the first choice for any threat of that type.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

o7 baker

We've started using MMA stuffs now, and that should vastly improve our CAS-ability. I've not heard Hutson say he wants it in IC's hands though. We'll have to inquire. I'm personally not for or against, but would sooner lean on real life practise. Ie, if sections actually have direct comms with CAS elements or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends how it plays out, but if for example we had a Harrier, Apache or Typhoon slated to a ranging anti-armour role, they'd be clear to engage targets upon detection. Hypothetical contact could be as follows:

 

Lead scout detects armour

 

Lead scout reports sighting

 

Section goes to ground

 

Section 1IC gets eyes on, makes decision immediately on whether to break contact or not (for instance, if it's a tank and it's dug in, squad might stay in place, if it's approaching then he might order the section to bug out then and there).

 

Section 1IC reports contact+co-ordinates to command

 

Command relays co-ordinates to CAS element

 

Section 1IC lases target

 

CAS element rains down pain and discontent

 

Section reports back to command on the effectiveness of CAS action.

 

Command tells CAS element to either return to station or have another pop (depending on the target)

 

Infantry section moves off.

 

 

Now that's all pretty much stating the obvious for how CAS works but I think it is sort of handy to look at everything involved in it, because it's a very comms-heavy and potentially time consuming operation. But that's how it's got to be I think because infantry are not expected to take on armour. There is very little by way of a rule book for how modern airborne infantry take on armour because by the normal run of things strike aircraft and CAS are right there on hand.

 

I'd actually be interested in maybe chucking those Unit 19 guys a shout for an op on this deployment so we can get our teeth into some armoured warfare. As an infantry player I wouldn't mind spending an occasional mission as kind of a support element while air and armour elements grapple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad you brought up lasing. I forgot to mention it in AAR. Last Sunday there was an instance where one of the sections came under fire from a vehicle and some infantry. We (apache) saw the section, but not what was shooting at them. There was one vehicle in the open and we shot it with a hellfire before being told that what we were engaging had already been knocked out.

 

Lasing the vehicle makes it appear boxed on our sights, whether concealed or not, and would have helped us locate/engage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...