Thermite on the engine deck does wonders too

>Thermite on the engine deck does wonders too

Every goddamn time...

>>6229
have fun putting it there.

>ISOLATE

This is the first step in the tactical defeat of a tank by infantry. Not coincidentally, it is the hardest to accomplish. It requires feint, deception, creativity, diversion, and ruthless exploitation of the terrain.

Armored vehicles rarely operate individually. More often you will encounter an armored unit of platoon strength than you will a long vehicle. The other vehicles in a platoon serve as support, as well as a ready supply of dismounted infantry in the event that one of the vehicles comes under attack. Attempting to engage a single target with infantry is a dangerous undertaking already, whose difficulty is upgraded to "suicidal" in the face of mass suppressing fire from the primary weapons of three or four nearby vehicles supporting the target.

In order to engage armor with infantry it MUST be done mano-a-mano. One tankhunter squad to one target vehicle.

Ignoring the possibility for the moment of multiple squads engaging multiple target vehicles simultaneously, what is needed in the case of a mano-a-mano fight is a way to separate and isolate one vehicle from his companions. There are a few ways to do this.

>Terrain exploitation

This is the key mechanism by which an organized armored group can be broken up. Narrow pathways force the targets to proceed single file, and blind corners can isolate one member from their comrades. Urban streets are an exceptionally good place to engage in this sort of combat for just these reasons, plus the degradation of radio transmission in and around buildings. Urban terrain has often been seen as a very bad place to conduct armored warfare for exactly these reasons, but any terrain that channels the targets into narrow lanes and provides blind corners and high points for observation can suffice.

>Preparation

For a tankhunter unit to meet with success, it will likely have to take some measures to prepare the battlefield. "Killing zones" for enemy armored vehicles should be constructed at bottlenecks and blind areas on the enemy's lanes of approach, which include, but are not limited to:

>Obstacles and obstructions - boobytrapped parked vehicles, czech hedgehogs, antitank minefields, antipersonnel boobytraps hidden in cover along the enemy line of approach, barbed wire barricades.

>Friendly cover and concealment - sandbagged lower-floor rooms in adjacent buildings, foxholes, camouflaged fighting positions, small ammunition caches.

>Covering fire - Machinegunners, snipers, and/or riflemen in prepared positions with interlocking lines of fire covering the killing zone from a short distance to blunt enemy infantry reinforcement. Heavy machineguns and/or MANPADS concealed at high terrain features like hills and rooftops to blunt close-air support. ATGM launchers concealed at a distance to begin the attack (less viable in dense urban terrain).

>Multiple avenues of escape - Just what it says on the tin. Multiple, prepared avenues of egress to ensure the attacking force can break off and retreat before retaliation can arrive. Passages cut through building walls, vehicles parked in alleys to block pursuers, and fueled motorcycles for quick, nimble transportation are good examples. Dispersing troops will meet later at a pre-selected rally point.

A feint attack or other deception can be used to draw a small detachment away from its comrades in pursuit. This can be used as the effective start of a counter-armor ambush by leading the target vehicle into the pre-prepared killing zone.

Large smoke grenades called "smokepots" can be made in 5 gallon buckets and hidden along the avenue of approach to be triggered after the target vehicle has passed them. These are used to create a blinding screen behind the target vehicle, obscuring the assault team from the view of the target's comrades for the duration of the attack and limiting the accuracy of any support fire they produce.

The entire point is to lure one target vehicle from the enemy force away from his buddies, and then bog him down in the killing zone so the tankhunter team can launch its assault.

I think the lessons learned in Grozny went a long way to shape the way armor crews are trained, It would be unlikely to see tanks used inside north American cities, there is too many situations where the civ forces would have height advantage.


civ forces could also make extensive use of sewer and steam tunnel accesses. as well as use city buses full of debris to quickly block roads and bridges

>>6237
>It would be unlikely to see tanks used inside north American cities


History is very clear that tanks in urban areas are a bad idea but since tanks were invented they keep getting deployed to dense cities, it just seems like its always going to happen no matter how much of a bad idea it is.


The best way to take out a tank is to call in air support, if you don't have access then follow the steps in this thread.

>>6238
>that pic of tanks with no AA
It's like they've never played an RTS

>>6233
It's not that diffiuclt in an urban area since you can hide in an alley and run behind it, or toss from a building up above. There's been a few T72s in Syria that were destroyed this way.

>>6240
Tanks in cities are a great idea provided you have enough infantry support. Tanks and APC's are the way to go though.

>>6237
>It would be unlikely to see tanks used inside north American cities
Wouldn't be the first time.
Detroit, 1967

>STRIP the target of its support.

This is the next basic step in the infantry engagement of an armored vehicle. Once the target has been isolated from its comrades, the tankhunter team will call upon its own supporting assets to accomplish two purposes:

>Kill any exposed priority personnel immediately. The vehicle commander and gunner in their hatches are particularly good targets for snipers practising simultaneous firing. Infantry riding on the exterior of the vehicle can be raked with machinegun fire. Anti-personnel grenades and molotov cocktails can be suddenly dropped from upper floor windows of adjacent buildings, or grenades and mortars can be lobbed from a short distance in flatter terrain. Previously emplaced claymore mines can be command detonated. Flame foogas explosions can quickly blanket both the vehicle and supporting infantry with fire, effecting an excellent reaction to the infantry's retreat and blinding the target's weapons as an added benefit.

>Force any supporting infantry who are travelling with the target vehicle to dismount, move away from the vehicle to cover, or retreat. Suppress the surviving infantry such that they can not impede the assault team attacking the target vehicle. Riflemen firing from concealed and dug-in positions, light machineguns, and snipers are the best methods to employ. Once the tankhunter assault team moves in, explosive ordnance like mortars or foogas can no longer be employed due to risk of friendly casualties in the killing zone.

The assault team themselves must be prepared to engage in close combat with any remaining stragglers from the enemy infantry, as well as the vehicle crews themselves as they approach the target from their concealed positions. Their weapons should mount bayonets, and assault teams should be well practised in close range and hand-to-hand combat, and the throwing of grenades.

As part of the preparation (hasty or otherwise) of the killing zone, one or more heavy machineguns or MANPADS should be emplaced in concealment at a high vantage point nearby, to discourage the involvement of enemy close-air support.

The start of the STRIP phase of the assault is generally also the beginning of the attack on the target proper. There should be a fast and smooth transition, a matter of seconds, from the opening attack on the supporting infantry and the initial BLIND and IMMOBILIZE attacks on the vehicle, as will be described below. Depending on the availability of certain weapons such as ATGMs and flame foogas, or improvised tactics (Panzerfaust fire from rooftops, EFP mines) the three phases (S-B-I) might even occur simultaneously.

>BLIND the target vehicle

Blinding the target is an important step in terms of the tankhunter team living to fight another day. There will be precious little time between the start of the attack and the arrival of enemy reinforcements, and a small unit of tank hunters can not hope to hold out long once those reinforcements arrive.

To ensure the quickest kill, the most effective of the enemy's weapons
(the target vehicles primary and secondary weapons) need to be nullified immediately at the start of the attack, and the vehicle needs to be prevented from effectively fleeing or seeking cover. This is affected by blinding the target vehicle.

The typical method of blinding a vehicle is by the use of smoke and flame. Ordinary smoke is less effective in the modern day and age due to the prevalence of thermal sights that can peer through it, but a particular type of smoke - one that is generated from the high temperature combustion of rubber, can still significantly degrade the vision of thermal viewers. This can be accomplished by adding 30% by weight of ground up material from ordinary tires to the chemical matrix of a smoke grenade. The rubber particles will still be burning hot as they are ejected from the grenade, and this creates a "lens flare" effect in a thermal viewer attempting to peer through the smoke, washing out the image.

Flame can be used in the form of the traditional molotov cocktail - a mixture of ~60% gasoline and ~30% motor oil in a glass bottle with a wick for ignition, that is aimed at the face of the vehicle near the viewers and viewports.

Either of these methods will prevent the vehicle from employing its weapons against the assault team's support. This in turn means that the support unit can continue to suppress and destroy the target's infantry support and grant the assault team itself a window of time to rush and engage the target vehicle.

Further, the blinded vehicle will have great difficulty in executing an escape maneuver or in seeking cover, making it an easier target for the assault team.

In OPERATION, the assault team will move from their concealed positions as soon as the enemy infantry has been stripped away, immediately employ their blinding weapons and anti-armor weapons such as Panzerfausts and anti-tank grenades, and rush the target vehicle. Their goal is to damage or immobilize the target and get within the vehicle's Visual Dead Zones - the regions here illustrated where the buttoned-up vehicle can not observe them or engage them with its weapons. Contrary to the norm in infantry combat, an attacker is actually safest when pressed close to an enemy vehicle. This further provides the opportunity for attack.

Once inside this safe zone, the team will go to work immediately on the next 2 steps - IMMOBILIZING and DISARMING the target.

The reason for extending the attack into the IMMOBILIZE and DISARM phases instead of moving directly to the DESTROY phase, is because to affect destruction of an armored vehicle with handheld implements takes time that will usually not be available. An infantry assault on an armored vehicle is a fast, nasty affair, usually over within a few seconds to a couple minutes of it starting. The enemy, ever alert and reactive, will try to respond to the attack with reinforcements as soon as it begins, and the tankhunter team must egress before they can arrive. That leaves precious little time for the assault team to do their job, and oftentimes they will have better overall effect by severely crippling the target's weapons and transportation systems before breaking off and escaping, instead of going for the slower catastrophic kill.

For both phases, explosive ordnance is used. Antitank grenades, satchel charges (15+ lbs of explosive), and thermite grenades are specifically useful. For disabling a tank's main cannon, a special explosive "saddle" charge can be made by connecting 2 small bags with a short piece of string. The bags are filled with 1+ lbs of primed high explosive each. This is draped over the barrel of the gun, and when the bags detonate they will crush the gun tube walls in and block the barrel, destroying the gun. See pic:

http://www.operatorchan.org/w/src/135805521629.jpg

To IMMOBILIZE the target, it should be attacked with explosive weapons targeting the TRACKS and DRIVE SPROCKET. NOT the ROAD WHEELS.

Most modern tanks can still retain some mobility if they lose a road wheel. Ignore them. A satchel charge of 15+ lbs can be thrust between the track and a wheel, or wedged between the end of the track and the ground in order to break the track. If the drive sprocket can be blown off, the entire drive assembly on that side will be crippled.

The large engine compartment at the rear of most tanks makes a good target for an antitank grenade or a Panzerfaust fired on the approach. A direct hit in the rear from a shaped charge weapon will shut the engine down for some time before it can be restarted, assuming it even survives intact. Holes made into the engine compartment this way can also facilitate the DESTROY phase of the assault.

The weapons of the vehicle can be destroyed with small satchel charges hung over their barrels or stuffed into their mounts. Turrets can be damaged by wedging a large (20lb) satchel charge under the turret "neck", between the turret itself and the hull of the vehicle, directly under the mounted gun. In a tank's case, a thermite grenade can be forced down the bore of the cannon, and shaped charge bombs can be set over the hatches and vision blocks to injure the crew inside. If the hatches can be forced open, molotov cocktails or grenades can be dropped inside the tank. The bore evacuator can be punctured from a distance with several shots from a heavy-caliber rifle like a .50BMG, making it hazardous for the crew to fire the main gun.

Even if the assault team does not manage to complete the DESTROY phase beyond this point and obliterate the target, the vehicle is now immobile and harmless and its crew injured or killed, and will require fairly extensive repair before returning to the field. That alone can be some measure of victory.

http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/fight/AntitankTactics.pdf


Related; with pictures for the visual learners.

>DESTROY the target

The final phase, time permitting, is the catastrophic destruction of the target vehicle. Short of having the capacity to call in an airstrike, or access to multiple heavy ATGMs in the TOW2 class, there is only one practical means for achieving this:

KILL IT WITH FIRE.

Fire and flame are anathema to armored vehicles. The combustion reaction can spread into every accessible nook and cranny of the hull and turret, destroying every part of the vehicle EXCEPT the armor, leaving it a useless hulk and a tomb for its crew.

To destroy a vehicle with fire has two prerequisites: A considerable quantity of very hot burning fuel, on the order of twenty to thirty gallons, and a means to penetrate enough of the armor to get the fuel into the weaker areas of the hull, such as the engine compartment and the vehicle's own fuel tanks.

>A good fuel for this is classic flamethrower fuel - a mixture of 45% diesel fuel, 40% kerosene, and 15% motor oil.

The fuel can be quickly carried onto the vehicle in ordinary 5 gallon jerry cans, to which small explosive charges have been attached. The cans are stacked one over the turret and the remainder over the engine deck, after opening any accessible hatches. If there are no penetrations into the turret or engine compartment from the initial attack, one or two should be made by quick use of shaped charge bombs before setting the jerry cans. The fuel must be able to flow into the engine compartment and the turret.

The assault team will then retreat from the tank and trigger the explosives on the jerry cans by remote. If the fuel cloud then fails to ignite, it can be lit from a distance with a thrown torch or tracer rounds. The result will be a spectacular fireball, engulfing the entire vehicle. The thickened fuel will stick to the vehicle and stream down through the holes made in the turret and deck, igniting the crew compartment and engine. Ideally the vehicles own fuel system will be ignited, and the entire target will be consumed from the inside out with a roaring fire.

Many tanks have fire suppression systems, but these are generally only good for 2 or 3 brief uses. The large quantity of fuel used assures that enough will still be burning that the blaze can re-ignite itself after each use of the suppression system has passed.

In addition to jerry cans, the engine can be destroyed if a thermite grenade or satchel can be placed inside the engine compartment itself, or over a weakened engine cover or penetration hole. This may also ignite the vehicle's fuel and destroy it. Thermite can also be used against APCs to great effect when deployed on the roof of the crew compartment, above the ammo stowage for the weapons.

So far what we have been illustrating is the ideal scenario - a decent sized, decently equipped group of defenders squaring off against an attacker with limited numbers who is relying on the strengths of their armor to win the fight.

Such events happen, as they did to Israel in 2006, but they are [n]not[/i] the most common scenario in this day and age. We will now look at the two circumstances that ARE.

>Scenario 1: The Armored Invasion

A deliberate and large scale invasion of a city by an armored battalion with artillery support, rest areas, and a decently supplied logistics and maintenance chain. Large number of vehicles are moving down city streets, with infantry teams clearing adjacent buildings as they progress. See also: Fallujah.

>and Scenario 2: The Hasty Antiarmor Ambush

A tiny unit of defenders are tipped off to a movement by a an opposition patrol, and must quickly engage one or two vehicles and their infantry support to prevent them from reaching their objective. See also: Mujahideen vs. Soviet Union.

We'll look at the easier of the two scenarios first - The Hasty Ambush.

A typical scenario would look something like this:

>You're the leader of a small militant band of between 10 and 30 men, a few with prior military training.
>You have only personal small arms and some basic antiarmor weapons that you have made in a workshop.
>You receive an intelligence tip from a friendly civilian that an armored patrol will be entering your AO in a few hours, looking out for you.
>Whatchu gon' do 'bout it, faggot?!

The answer is the hasty ambush. You don't have time for elaborate battlefield prep, and you don't have enough men for full support and suppression. The enemy will most likely be moving as a Section of two medium-armored vehicles (APCs or IFVs) with infantry either onboard or dismounted. They will have a Quick Reaction Force on tap for backup, and possibly available air support a few minutes away.

>Just because there's only a couple vehicles, do not underestimate them.

Since we're dealing with APCs, and since we do not have time to prepare a proper killing zone, one can be improvised by using a natural bottleneck in the attacker's path - or even better, the space just BEYOND a bottleneck from his point of view. We choose the latter because the enemy is smart, and will be at their most cautious when moving through such a vulnerable point. However, if they are attacked beyond that point, the bottleneck can also serve to restrict their movement if they try to retreat, giving the attackers a second chance at immobilizing them.

Since we lack the proper numbers to conduct a detailed suppression mission and because the two vehicles are already isolated from their larger units (and if well trained, can NOT be isolated from each other), we will temporarily skip the ISOLATE and STRIP phases of the attack, and begin the ambush by focusing on the HALT and IMMOBILIZE phase, followed by STRIPPING the dismounted infantry as they counterattack. It is done with three weapon systems:

>Antitank mines - A couple of these (even just dummies) in the path will force the vehicle to HALT.
>EFP mines - These can IMMOBILIZE the vehicles from the roadside if planted strategically and command detonated.
>Flame Foogas - These are triggered immediately after the EFP mines and just as the enemy infantry begins to coordinate their anti-ambush maneuver. Ideally you will catch both the infantry and the vehicles with it, STRIPPING the former and BLINDING the latter. If material availability allows, claymore mines can be placed in likely cover positions near the ambush site to catch any unwary infantry who escape the ambush.

A good improvised flame foogas is made by setting an ordinary claymore mine (issue or improvised) taped to the back of a 5 gallon gasoline can filled with gasoline, to which a handful of soap flakes has been added and dissolved. Carefully concealed, a half dozen of these can blanket an entire roadway with fire and shrapnel.

The next phase is to ISOLATE the two vehicles from visual support by eachother and by the infantry. Ordinary smoke bombs can be used in number for this purpose. The entire road area on one side of the vehicles and between them should be blocked thick with smoke - 6 or 7 grenades worth. As the smoke is being deployed, Panzerfausts and antitank mines can be deployed against the stricken vehicles by the nearby assault team, firing from their concealed positions.

At this point the assault team leader must make a decision. If the enemy infantry has managed to take cover relatively intact, he only has a short time to break the ambush and disengage if he and his men are to escape and avoid casualties.

If the enemy infantry has been suppressed or destroyed by his ambush, however, he may choose to complete the DESTROY phase of the battle on the two vehicles. Immediately after the barrage of AT grenades and Panzerfausts, and under the cover of the smoke cloud, two men with the flame-jerrycans from the earlier example rush each vehicle, throwing the cans on top and fleeing. At a safe distance, they detonate the two cans and the assault team leader gives the order to retreat.

Regardless of the size of the assault team in this example, the avenue of retreat MUST be covered by at least one, and preferably two, riflemen in covered and concealed overwatch positions. The greatest risk to the assault team comes from the pursuing infantry firing into the escaping team's back. It is also wise to remember that the way the enemy infantry will try to break the initial ambush is by charging the ambushers to get out of the killing zone. They will come at your flanks aggressively, so be prepared to deal with them in close combat if necessary. A sniper or two, if available, on watch for enemy infantry trying to rush your line can be an enormous asset, though not always available.

I love you OP. So, so much.

May I ask, if the enemy has air asset while ambushing the enemy tanks? What do?

>>6290

Depends on the asset, and how readily available it is. Fixed wing CAS loitering the battlefield somewhere? Probably won't get there in time if you skip the DESTROY phase and beat feet after roasting the infantry.

Helicopter gunships at 1000ft right above the patrol? Cuss a little and head home for the day unless you have MANPADS on deck. The first responsibility for the kleinsoldaten is to live to fight another day.

The next scenario is a work in progress.

Looking at the battle of Fallujah as an example of a modern armored invasion of city, we can gather a few useful bits of information.

>Infantry+Armor formations were the spearhead of the battle.
>Precision artillery support was used extensively against defenders firing from long range or hardened positions.
>Close air support was fair to negligible in impact. The bulk of the work was done on the ground.
>Tank Sections (a pair of tanks) lead every movement down the streets.
>The tanks were flanked by Infantry companies (~40 men each) who cleared each building adjacent to the tanks as the tanks rolled down the street.
>Tanks ONLY moved in Sections, never singularly.
>The tanks guns were used liberally to destroy any target whatsoever that was giving the infantry trouble. TONS of 105mm HEAT ammo was used for this purpose.
>The tanks were used for breaching buildings to get the infantry inside, and to flatten obstacles blocking them.
>The tank Sections were followed by a row of APCs, a tank recovery vehicle, and Caterpillar D9 Combat Bulldozers (for destroying obstacles too big for the tanks) a short distance back behind them.
>Multiple units like this moved down parallel streets simultaneously, and infantry would engage anyone moving in the side streets or alleys, protecting the convoy's flanks.
>The tanks didn't advance until the infantry had cleared the next adjacent buildings, and the infantry didn't advance until the tanks had destroyed any upcoming strong points with their guns.
>Anything else causing problems got leveled by artillery.
>Rear supply, rest, and maintenance areas were set up outside the city, and damage tanks were quickly towed back down the street for repairs. Infantry and vehicles all had a regular rotation for resupply, rest, and rearming.

Now imagine there are twelve formations like this moving down the twelve most important streets in your hometown, to take the city center. And they're clearing every building they come across room-by-room looking for you to exterminate you. The only ROE is kill or be killed, for you and for them.

I dunno about you, but from the standpoint of a few hundred defenders with modest means, that is a DAUNTING problem.

>>6297
>I dunno about you, but from the standpoint of a few hundred defenders with modest means, that is a DAUNTING problem.

Not really. Any defending commander with a minimum of leadership and tactical training would retreat. It's an untenable position, holding out for holding out's sake is pointless and a waste of men and material.

An alternative would be what the Irish republicans did during the Easter rising of 1916 - tunneling. I think it was Pearse that said urban warfare against superior enemies amounted to tunneling and more tunneling. Get behind/outside the leading tanks (which are moving inwards) and try to cripple the following support vehicles so they block the road - try to capture the assaulting forces inside the city so they can't get out to resupply.

>>6298

>Tacticsmind

That's about where I was going to go with it, actually. Get the defenders spread out as close to the outer city limits as possible, lets the waves of attacking troops pass, and launch a coordinated assault against their rear end and supply elements. Pull a mini-Stalingrad on them. I was looking less at digging and more at hidden locations in pre-prepared houses as staging areas, but same difference.

>>6299

In addition, I'd say the order of the day would be to plant as many cleverly disguised EFP's around as possible, preferably with set-and-forget (easy way would be dual-beam laser triggers, or magnetic triggers) and arm them after the main line has rolled through. But yeah, any armed, obvious resistance forces I controlled would be getting the fuck out of Dodge. Strictly automated attacks on rear vehicles, and with that sort of force moving through, only by forces that could not be identified as insurgents in any way -- and they'd just be setting up/arming the devices and leaving.

My personal victory conditions in this situation would be just getting my men and material out of the area intact. If that were accomplished and only one device disabled a single vehicle and wounded/killed no more than a few infantry? Fuck it, that's a good day IMO.

>>6298

But that didn't really happen, did it? They hold out for holding out sake and they got decimated.

Given if they could defend until larger reinforcement arrives or play the attrition card, what would be the best way?

If they were to sever one form of offense (either infantry or armour though I'm sure it's armour seeing it's AT oriented thread), the assault would stall and it'll give both side time to reorganize or assault from the defender if they have the resources.

>>6315
>But that didn't really happen, did it? They hold out for holding out sake and they got decimated.

Well they were hoping the general population would rise up, and they were also gambling on reinforcements arriving from Germany and the Irish diaspora. Help never came and they mostly went down fighting. Pearse read the unconditional surrender once he realized things weren't going to get any prettier.

"In order to prevent the further slaughter of Dublin citizens, and in the hope of saving the lives of our followers now surrounded and hopelessly outnumbered, the members of the Provisional Government present at headquarters have agreed to an unconditional surrender, and the commandants of the various districts in the City and County will order their commands to lay down arms."

(Of course, the Brits executed him a few days later.)

>Given if they could defend until larger reinforcement arrives or play the attrition card, what would be the best way?

I'd split my force into 4-5 man squads. Make sure they roam the entire city, don't get pinned down, hit and run, stay alive as long as possible, prefer flight to fight, etc. The Irish rebels specifically lost mostly because they a few highly obvious positions (the GPO, Stephen's Green, Four Corners, etc) and tried to hold them. The Brits flooded the place with reinforcements, positioned mortars and MGs (I think they even moved a big ol' gun boat up the Liffey to shell rebel positions) and just pounded the rebels into submission. Fixed positions just aren't tenable over longer periods of fighting against superior numbers and superior equipment. So I'd say movement is key.

No, what happened was the guys stood their ground, lost, and got a whole SHITTON of civilians killed in the battle.

Clever is clever, but sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor. Here's what I can deduce:

>The attacking force probably lacks the manpower to continuously occupy every cleared building in their wake. More likely the infantry clear the buildings, the tanks move up, and the infantry then leapfrog the tanks to continue the push, leaving the cleared buildings unoccupied.

>Security elements for the rear of the attacking convoys and resupply areas were somewhat weak. First-hand accounts of the battle often stressed a need for better training for the rear line support and supply troops, who got "chewed up pretty badly" any time they came under attack, according to one after-action report.

>Airpower was negligible, but artillery was a serious threat to the defenders. Forward Observers usually travelled with the lead tanks, sometimes calling fire from the crew compartment. This puts them out of observation range of the rear elements...

>Due to the lack of airpower support, MANPADS and SAMs were not necessary for the defence.

>LARGE numbers of RPG-7s were fired in Fallujah, but relatively few vehicles were knocked out or damaged. This was mostly the fault of the supporting infantry - RPG-packing defenders very rarely got close enough for even a decent shot at their targets.

>The greatest casualty producer on both sides actually turned out to be mortars. Not RPGs, not grenades, not machineguns, but mortars. Large mortars guided by FOs on the attackers side, and medium mortars used by the defenders and zoned in on the major streets. Counterbattery fire was used very effectively by the attackers.

>A further high number of WIA casualties were caused by defending snipers. Heavy body armor on the torso prevented most fatalities, but leg and thigh wounds were a common cause of troops being forced out of the battle.

>Attacks from above the tanks were almost a nonissue. The M1A1s can elevate their guns enough to hit the third story of a building from as close at 30 yards. There were almost no top-attack RPG hits, and no known damage caused by AT grenades. Though that last one may be because none were available.

>The infantry used in the attack spent most of their time dismounted, with the APCs in the convoy carrying supplies, a few reserve troops, and using their weapons for fire support and suppression.

Whoopsie, that last post was directed at >>6315, not you Seraph. Trying to type cogent stuff between customers takes a while.

Since we're kind of brainstorming this one, here is a take I came up with.

When I got wind of the assault, I'd have workers prep buildings in the outer periphery of the city near the major expected attack routes. Nothing fancy - just a few false walls made from local material to hide guys in. I'd barricade every major street in the city I could with repurposed vehicles, just to slow the attackers down. I'd then split my forces (assume ~800 defenders for this exorcize) into three divisions.

First division would be the token defense force of 100 men. A skeleton crew to prepare EFP and IED boobytraps in the major fairways and cover them from a distance with rifles and the odd mortar or RPG. Just enough to make it look like someone was defending the city. These guys also, however, are given the bulk of any heavy antitank weapons and good radios available to hold in reserve. This will be important later.

Second division of 400 men would be hidden in the false rooms in the periphery buildings. Their job is to lay low until the attackers have passed them and are well into the city. These guys get most of the remaining AT weapons, including all the light AT gear like grenades and panzerfausts.

Third division of 300 men is to leave the city with the best gear and weapons to include any MANPADS or other AA assets and conceal themselves nearby, in an area near where we expect the enemy to launch their main attack from. This unit should include the bulk of ex-military troops, especially trained artillerymen and doorkickers.

The plan of OPERATION would be to let the attack proceed. When the attack force is well into the city and making good time against the token defenders, Division 3 sends scouts to locate the attacker's artillery support units. 3D then moves in stealth to a rally point near it, and launches an attack to seize the artillery.

Radio silence is broken only to give the signal for Second Division to move from their concealment and tear into the enemy attack force's rear, and for First Division to go on an all out offensive against the tanks, catching the attack force in a pincer and hopefully pinning them down or at least blocking them in the city.

The mission goal is to block the attack force in long enough for D3 to seize the artillery batteries outside and turn them on the attack force in the city, using 1D as forward observers.

Between the unexpected pincer attack in the city and barrages of fire from their own state-of-the-art artillery, and with 3D having MANPADS to delay the inevitable airstrikes that will be called on them, they might just be able to do enough damage to thwart the assault and force the attackers to pull out. Maybe even capture/destroy them if the attackers air assets or ground reinforcements aren't up to speed.

>>6318
>shit about the rear line troops
This feed into my singular idea for fucking with these kinds of advances:

Command detonated IEDs under the road. Stick a guy, or a few guys, with detonators within line of sight but with no weapons, preferentially hidden among actual civilians in a hotel or apartment, and far enough away that it won't get cleared until much later. Wait until the support vehicles are over it, boom. Advance stalled. Ideally, you'd have two, and detonate the one further in first so anything moving up form behind to clear the road could be hit with one as well, causing a halt to recovery efforts until the entire stretch was re-checked for people and munitions.


do this on two parallel streets and you could conceivably cut off one of the armor elements from the rest of the tanks entirely, at least for a bit.

  I had seen this video before but just bumped into it again.

A Springfield Armory intel video on how to fight and destroy T-64 and T72 tanks from the late 1960s.

>>7877
>late 1960s
>PASGT
>Bradleys
>Dragons

I don't think so Tim

>>6228
great read man. thanks alot. I'm including your posts in this thread

MY TANK IS FIGHT

>>7879

Actually the M1s were the giveaway on the typo. I meant to type 70s, but it has to be early-mid 80s for Abrams to be driving around so I fucked up either way.

>>7882
I only watched a couple seconds into the vid before I posted. I didn't see the M1s yet. Good video though.

  Here's en EXCELLENT training from WW2 showing German antitank squads at work.

Also I should probably source the "Kill it with Fire" claim before anyone thinks I'm talking out my ass.

That tidbit of information came from reading the after-action reports concerning M1s that we lost in Desert Storm. It is widely publicized that not a single M1 was catastrophically killed by enemy fire. This is technically true.

Without exception, all of our catastrophic losses of M1s were caused by secondary fires, mostly burning diesel fuel from the bustle-mounted generators but also from TA50 stored on the external racks, that got burning material down into the engine compartment and ignited it.

If you can get the engine and/or fuel system of an armored vehicle on fire, you can catastrophically destroy it without exception. Even the invincible Abrams is susceptible to this.

One example here:

www.fprado.com/armorsite/US-Field-Manuals/abrams-oif.pdf

From page 5:

>Externally stored items highly vulnerable to small arms fire. In some instances, catastrophic losses resulted from burning EAPU material and/or packaged POL products dripping down into the engine compartment catching the engine on fire.

and page 9

>Medium Cal to Left Sponson Box Initiated EAPU Fire. Affects from EAPU caused Engine Fire.

If you can cripple it, you can burn it.

>>8034
So somebody spraying an Abrams with a .30 cal could theoretically destroy it?

>>8039

Theoretically. Better odds it it were .30cal incendiary and it has to have a bunch of burnable shit on it, either an APU up top or something else; One or two holes poked in the engine compartment by HEAT rounds would make it 1000X more effective.

  Pretty neat video of a rebel ATGM nuking a Syrian T72M.

Couple things:

>Slow flight time of the missile
>Red tracer flare
>Corkscrewing flight path

Guessing its a METIS?

Also odd considering the firing position. You usually don't shoot when the tank has its gun or optics pointed anywhere near you. I'm thinking both the rebels and the tank crew were equally inexperienced.

>>6297
>The tanks guns were used liberally to destroy any target whatsoever that was giving the infantry trouble. TONS of 105mm HEAT ammo was used for this purpose.

An Abrams with a 120mm gun can fire 105mm rounds?

>>8057
should add that I'm not being a smartass, genuinely curious.

>>8057

Some of my sources referred to the M1s in Falluja using 105mm HEAT numerous times. I guess that means some of the marine corps M1s were still rocking the old M68 105mm rifled cannon and not the newer 120mm smoothbore? Either that or the author just misinterpreted the caliber. I was originally under the impression that all the M1s in Fallujah were M1A2SEPs, but the AARs contradict that in some cases.

Re: Using the APU to light the turbine on fire and disabling an Abrams.

That happened at the Baghdad airport, and it was from a Zeus hitting it from an elevated position. I wouldn't necessarily trust a .30 cal to do the job when the one reported instance of it happening involved .57 cal rounds.

Kinda wish the thread that spawned the OP image had been archived, I had some good stuff in there...

>>6238

Calling in air assets for close air support/battlefield interdiction requires competent and well trained air forces. Believe it or not, those things don't grow on trees and Arabs, more than most, do not exude military competence through their pores although they have occasionally highlighted what happens when the Western military forces march in with a bit too much
hubris.

>>8045

The Metis is sorta weird missile. Remember Ivans both had the AT-4 Spigot/Fagot and the AT-5 Spandrel/Konkurs which are comparable to the Milan and HOT or TOW but the Soviet missiles could be fired off the same launcher the differences obvious being range and warhead size. The Metis was an attempt to make an ATGM light enough so you can have one organic... to a rifle platoon if not squad/section. So the old Red Army knew the RPG-7 had its drawbacks in dealing w/ any sort of armor past 200, 300 meters.

Being wire guided and only a 1000 meter range you can compare it to the old Dragons but the Metis doesn't have that same ZOMGBACKBLASTLOLWUT and the dozens of small retrorockets that sounds like a kid w/ bag of M80s on the 4th of July. The launcher tripod means the gunner can lay flat on his gut like Eryx unlike the Dragon where you have to sit down or shoot standing (if you managed to dig a firing position for prepared defenses)

Alright, so we've covered some basic ideas and some basic weapons, and more advanced technology elsewhere, and a little bit of nitty gritty on what to generally do as far as dealing with a small armored enemy.

But how best, specifically, does one EMPLOY the various antitank weapons that we've discussed?

>Antitank Mines - General point-blank defensive weapon and ambush weapon

>AT Grenades - Close range defensive and assault weapon

>RPGs / Panzerfausts - Close/medium range defensive and assault weapon

>MCLOS Antitank Guided Missiles - Long range offensive / ambush weapon

We'll begin with mines.

Antitank mines are a wonderful asset, because they are essentially "set and forget."

An AT mine is essentially a metal or wooden box, filled with 20 to 40 pounds of high explosive, and equipped with one or more detonators and anti-handling (boobytrap) devices. They are emplaced somewhere the enemy is likely to run over it, armed, and left to its own devices.

The key question with AT mines is where to locate them. You would not, for example, want to place them haphazardly along a roadway that your own forces use, or might be compelled to use in an emergency. At least not in the defensive role. Defensively speaking, the best places to put AT mines are zones of your friendly terrain, OFF THE MAIN ROADS, that the enemy might attempt to exploit for advantage!

For instance. Lets say you have a small compound with vehicle checkpoints on the main entryways. In between two of the checkpoints is an open grass yard with an unobstructed view of your supply depot. An enemy APC approaching either of the checkpoints would certainly come under RPG fire, but with its tracked mobility would have no difficulty in turning off the road and tearing ass up through the grass to drop its troops in the depot. So your defensive AT mine assets would be best spent using a few to "plug the gaps" in your traditional defenses. Every bottleneck should be defended with troops, and every unused, "open field" area should be at least lightly mined.

The best type of mine uses a HEAT-type warhead to attack the underbelly of the vehicle, and a tilt-rod detonator. These do not require that they be run over by a track - any part of the vehicle passing over them will do the job. One such mine placed every twelve feet, in two lines spaced six feet apart in depth and staggered, is guaranteed to catch any armored vehicle passing through the lines for a relatively small number of mines needed.

Always remember that the precise type, location, number, and orientation of all friendly mines must be rigorously recorded in case you ever need to remove them. Use subtle markings to identify friendly minefields so your own people don't accidentally walk into them.

Mines can also be used in the ambush and deterrent roles.

The best type of mine for an ambush is the EFP mine of 180-250mm diameter and weight of 10-30lbs. Specifically, the best mine is two or three of the above. Placed around a curve, they should be divided up such that one mine is pointing down the road, into the face of the oncoming vehicle, and the other(s) are directed from the side of the road, pointing at the same spot for detonation. In this manner, when the detonator is tripped, the lead EFP penetrates the engine compartment from the front and stops the vehicle, even as the side EFP(s) tear through the crew compartments and cause injuries. Such an ambush is naturally overwatched by an assault team, who can then launch a traditional small arms attack on the stricken vehicle.

AT mines can also be used as a deception. Just one or two such mines, boobytrapped and placed obviously on a roadway, followed by any number of fake decoy mines (the more the merrier!), will still necessitate that all the decoys be dealt with professionally. This can halt all enemy vehicle traffic on that road until all the "mines" are disposed of. A few mines used in such a deception can also be used to HALT a vehicle to start our antiarmor ambush exorcises above.

Possibly the most damaging use for the deception tactic is on an airfield runway. Just one or two mines and a batch of decoys could conceivably shut down an enemy's airpower assets over a large area for a SIGNIFICANT amount of time.

When expecting attack, at least a few people should be assigned to each minefield to provide overwatch. A sniper and a couple guys with rifles or a light mortar or grenade launcher would be adequate - just enough to discourage anyone from sneaking through the mines. They should be a couple hundred yards away in well covered, concealed, and comfortable long-use positions, with good radios for calling in what they see.

The Antitank Grenade

The AT grenade, in its simplest understanding, is the business end of an anti-tank rocket that is attached to a stick for throwing.

They are cheap. VERY cheap. And can be produced in enormous numbers for the same relative cost as a handful of more sophisticated weapon systems. That alone gives them points. They are sufficiently powerful to penetrate most light and medium armored vehicles, though may only be situationally useful against actual tanks. Furthermore, in an urban environment and especially in close quarters, the dangerous backblast of an antitank rocket is quite likely to injure or kill the user or his comrades with even the slightest miscalculation of position. The AT grenade does not suffer this drawback, and is also more concealable and more easily transported.

It does have two powerful disadvantages, however. The first is egregiously short range. Just how far can an average man throw a five pound weight of plastic and high explosives? Fifty feet is about the most you can expect with any degree of accuracy. The second drawback is a consequence of the first - the thrower is within range of the shrapnel and debris thrown out by the explosion and may be easily injured by them.

Both of these factors can be made up by proper employment. Specifically, the AT grenade is best used at very close range, and best thrown (or dropped from above) at a target [b]from a position of concealment and light cover.[/i]

Good places from which to employ AT grenades are:

>Sandbagged windows on upper floors of buildings. Not rooftops, as you're too easy to spot.
>Simple one or two-man fighting positions that have been enhanced with concealment - a brush covered foxhole.
>A camouflaged position in a ditch along a roadside.
>A concealed perch behind a reinforced barricade (vehicles chained together, blocking a road, with sandbags added.)
>Thrown from around a corner in a blind turn on a street.
>Dropped off an overpass, with the thrower ducking back away from the edge before detonation.
>Thrown up and over a barricade, like an exterior wall , concrete street divider, or strong slatted fence.
>Thrown from around the side of a natural piece of cover, such as a large tree.
>Thrown over or around a man-made piece of cover, such as a parked pickup with sandbags lining the bed.

The location MUST meet the three required attributes! It must be CLOSE to the target or expected path of the target - within easy throwing range (30 feet is nearly ideal). It must have CONCEALMENT, to give the thrower enough surprise to get the AT grenade armed and launched towards the target before it can react. And it must have at least a small amount of COVER - enough to protect the thrower from the shrapnel and debris from the explosion (and ideally from return fire from small arms as well.)

A further requirement is that this position, whatever it may be, provides quick access to a path of egress - a way to escape any retaliation from the target and its crew or companions. Narrow alleys, connected buildings, and blind corners again make the urban environment nearly ideal for the employment of these weapons.

Such employment sites should be chosen or constructed along known routes, such as streets and highways, or unpaved roads with suitable roadside terrain that may be used by the enemy. The AT Grenade is best employed in the ambush role - either defensively from a prepared position as part of a pre-rehearsed plan to stop an attacking armored vehicle, or offensively in mounting a very close range assault on one in convenient pre-existing terrain (say, an APC parked at a checkpoint with a vacant building within throwing range) using highly mobile light infantry.

The PZF concept was a direct extension of the earlier usage of antitank grenades. All the PZF really is, is a large AT grenade with a set of tailfins for stable flight. It is shot out of a disposable steel tube using a charge of common black powder. The back end of the tube is open, causing a very large back-blast effect that cancels the recoil of the weapon. The PZF is a very simple, easy to fabricate weapon that could likely be seen in large numbers during an insurgency.

The RPG is a more sophisticated version of the PZF, in which the projectile is made much more aerodynamic for better flight, and then is equipped with a rocket motor to push it to greater distances (500-600m effective range compared to the PZF's 50-100m) than the recoilless launcher alone could manage. The firing tube is also better designed and can be reused for many, many shots. They are vastly more complicated to construct and engineer than the PZF, and far more expensive for small scale production. For this reason we'll be looking at the PZF chiefly.

The PZF is the common infantryman's best friend against armor. It allows him to engage and destroy lightly armored vehicles, or damage or disable heavily armored ones, from enough distance that he can maintain a relatively high degree of safety for himself and his teammates. Unlike the 50-foot throwing distance and modest power of the AT grenade, the PZF offers excellent medium armor-busting capability and can be used at ranges up to 100 yards with fair accuracy. It is powerful and accurate enough to cripple even a Main Battle Tank, if you can hit it in the right spot.... And there lies the rub. The PZF has two very significant weaknesses that require careful employment and training:

>BACKBLAST!

Because the PZF uses a recoilless launcher, a large amount of burning black powder is ejected to the front, and especially rear of the tube when the weapon is fired. The backblast of a PZF is enormous, leaving every ear within 50 yards ringing in its wake, and scorching a path of destruction behind it with a massive jet of compressed fire thirty feet long that can ricochet off any obstacles behind the shooter and actually cook him from behind! Black powder also burns with a thick, sulphur-y smoke, and the discharge of a PZF sends out a giant plume of it that all but screams "I JUST SHOT AT YOU, KILL ME RIGHT HERE!"

>SHORT RANGE

The PZF has a longer range than the AT grenade for sure, but 50-100m is still quite short range by combat standards. The shooter employing the PZF is going to be well within the envelope of every weapon carried by the enemy, and well within the distance that enemy infantry could rush his position if it is exposed.

>SO

Every time you fire one of these things, you're holding up a giant "SHOOT ME!" sign, while standing within range of every weapon in the enemy's arsenal, maybe including their pocketknives. We'll look at how one thrives in that situation in the next post.

Say what if the militia does not have the resources to acquire explosives? What are the alternatives in disabling tanks?

I'm talking about countries that has no access or ban on weapons.

How would your rag tag group of untrained people armed with probably hunting shotguns and security guard type armaments tackle down IFVs and tanks?

So bearing in mind our two problems - short-ish range and massive backblast, lets analyse the strengths of the PZF as a weapon, and see what we can do in using those strengths to overcome the weaknesses:


>You can engage an armored vehicle or point target from any distance up to 100m.

This means that you have a MUCH bigger choice of cover and concealment compared to an AT grenade. Your attack zone effectively becomes an area covering the size of 6 football fields. Your firing position(s) can be concealed anywhere within that area, and can be overbuilt for better cover without being conspicuous.

>The smoke cloud from firing is a sword that cuts both ways.

Yes, the massive noise and smoke plume will give your firing position away. But the thick cloud of smoke also obscures the DETAILS of your position, as well as any movements you're making from the enemy's view. By displacing to a backup location immediately after firing, the smoke can actually serve as a decoy - drawing the enemy's fire to your old position even as you're setting up your next shot from a new spot!

>Good discipline and a little sweat can mitigate the danger of the backblast.

The fire jet that comes out of the rear of the weapon MUST have an area to discharge into where it will not strike anything flammable or anything solid. In the former case, you would have a fire cutting off your retreat, and in the latter the flame can actually bounce off solid objects and literally come back and cook you. Plus the shockwave from the exploding powder could bounce back and blow your eardrums out. THE BACKBLAST AREA OF ANY FIRING POSITION MUST BE CLEARED FOR AT LEAST 20 FEET, PREFERABLY 30! This is accomplished by adding two things to the PZF gunner's kit in addition to the standard entrenching tool: A demolition tool like a crowbar, and an extra canteen of water. To prepare a PZF position, the gunner clears out any major flammable debris from his rear - shrubs and brush in the field, or if firing from a building he knocks a hole in the wall behind him, at least four to five feet in diameter, to ensure he has backblast clearance. The canteen is used to wet down anything in the backblast area and immediate front of the firing position that would be flammable, like dry grass or a wood floor or far wall panelling to mitigate the fire hazard.

>The PZF gunner uses the Buddy System

Unlike most of the things I have covered, which favor the individual as the smallest unit of a fighting force, the PZF gunner does not, and can not, effectively work alone. There are several reasons for this: PZFs are best fired in pairs or triples - the more simultaneous hits, the greater the chance of taking the target vehicle out. Help is also needed to dig in fighting positions and provide covering fire after the PZF has been shot.

The PZF gunner functions as part of an anti-vehicle hunter/killer team. At a mimimum, such a team should consist of 2 PZF grenadiers and 1 or 2 riflemen. The riflemen help the PZF gunners secure their position and provide covering fire or smoke/HE grenade distractions when the team must relocate. Relocation to a new, prepared firing position should be an automatic action after each PZF shot. The two gunners fire, withdraw under their own smoke clouds, and move laterally to the next covered and concealed firing position under cover of fire from their accompanying riflemen using ordinary fire-and-movement techniques. The new position will have been previously stocked with a fresh pair of PZF launchers, so the gunners do not have to bog themselves with the weight of extras in addition to their rifles. This team is the mimimum. A more ideal professional team would be three PZF gunners, 3 rifleman "buddies" with smoke and HE grenades, a light machinegunner or sniper, a team leader with a radio and AT grenades, and a medic. Firing positions should be set up with at least TWO fallback positions. This gives each team three volleys before having to regroup or retreat. Positions should be set up for interlocking fields of fire covering road junctions, or areas with obstacles to bog the targets down and make them easier to hit. Targets should be allocated ahead of time by position. e.g. "PZF team A takes all targets moving in the LEFT lane of the street. Team B takes only targets in the RIGHT lane." This ensures against redundant fires or worse, two gunners firing at different targets - a single PZF round to one vehicle is highly unlikely to be effective. Pairs or triples are the only way to go.

Fighting positions should be located obliquely to the enemy's likely avenue of approach. Armor of a vehicle is always weakest on the top, sides, and especially rear. A well disciplined PZF team allowing the target to drive by it, stopping it with an EFP mine and firing PZFs into its ass from a 45 degree angle to the rear could destroy even an Abrams or a T72. A firing position in the upper stories of a building (REMEMBER THE BACKBLAST!) could give a clear shot at the extremely weak top of a tank, and knock it completely out of action. PZFs can also be used as a screen for more powerful, longer ranged weapons like ATGMs. A row of positions 500m out from the missiles could protect them from an armored charge, and at least a pair of PZF positions should accompany any checkpoint or roadblock, no matter how lightly defended otherwise.

>Discipline (do the homework on the backblast)
>Teamwork (buddy system and fire in pairs or triples, never alone)
>Intelligent selection of positions (choose wisely)
>Preparation (set those positions up properly, make sure you can move in cover or concealment)
>Discretion is the better part of valor. (after the shot, GTFO and set up for the next one elsewhere. Don't hesitate!)

For our purposes we are looking at the ATGM conceptualized as a man-packable, self-stabilizing, radio controlled, Manual-Command-Line-of-Sight (MCLOS) missile with a single HEAT warhead of about 700mm penetration, a range of about 1000m, a speed of about 130mph, and a weight of about 35lbs. A bastard child of an AT3 SAGGER and a Vickers VIGILANT.

ATGMs are the heaviest hitters of the man-portable antitank arsenal. Compared to an AT grenade or PZF with armor penetration on the order of 250-300mm, and a range of a few meters even a small ATGM can do highly effective damage to a Main Battle Tank from a flank shot, or lesser vehicles such as IFV's from the front. They have the longest range - with proper military models in excess of 3.5 kilometers, and even small-production ones capable of a kilometer or better. They can also do damage to structures and fortifications from these ranges, making them good (if comparatively expensive) anti-infantry weapons against such positions. Engaging parked combat aircraft from safe distances during an airfield assault is another excellent use for them. The advantages of the ATGM are not without some serious drawbacks, however:

>Heavy and bulky.

The ATGM is man-packable, not truly portable. Before it can be fired it must be assembled, the warhead armed, the firing and control circuits connected, the firing position covered and concealed and protected from flank attack.

>Crew OPERATED

Like our friend the PZF gunner, the ATGM missileer can not work alone. He must have a helper to set up the missile system quickly and dig in a safe launch position. He must have infantry to protect his flanks from enemy infantry screens and flanking attacks. He should have PZF gunners emplaced forward of him to blunt an armored rush on his position, and depending on circumstances he should be working in tandem with at least one other similar missile team, to generate crossfire and provide for multiple hits on targets to ensure kills.

>Significant firing signature

An ATGM launch is a big deal. There will be a good sized smoke cloud from the launch motor that marks the firing position, as well as a highly convenient (for the enemy) line of smoke from the rocket exhaust that points straight back to that same position. When an ATGM hits its target, the enemy will know immediately where it came from.

>Significant flight time

Unlike a PZF round which fires in a fast ballistic arc like a bullet and strikes the target almost immediately, an ATGM has to be slow enough to be steered by the missileer. This means there will be a several second delay (about 18 seconds at 1000m for the missile envisioned) between launch and impact. Enough time for the missile to be noticed and countermeasures taken by the target.

>Significant training requirements

The ATGM is not a fire-and-forget weapon. The missileer has to be skilled at guiding it to its target, and the only way to build that skill is through practice and training. The ATGM team also has to train to work together quickly at emplacing, displacing, attacking and defending. ATGM use requires a good bit of teamwork.

>Line of sight vulnerability

In order to engage the target with the ATGM, it must be within line of sight of the missileer. This also means the missileer is in line of sight of the target and the target's weapons. Counterfire from GPMGs, HMGs, and cannon is a very real possibility.

>Jamming

Radio guidance of the missile can be jammed once the enemy is alerted to your presence.

In the next post we will look at ways of employing ATGMs that can mitigate these problems.

My thoughts on ant-tank tactics on foot.
Note that I'm avoiding mentioning any specific loadouts, just basics.
Best to keep shit simple, have a solid idea how and why to react based on the situation and whats on hand.

Pase 1: positioning.
You pretty much have to get in a good position for a weak spot that something you have can exploit.
There are several key steps here.

1- Cover/concealment:
If they don't see you you live longer.
If they don't see you, you also can position yourself better.
And if you sneak into a blind spot, you could possibly get out without engaging further, especially if you have a distraction ready to go after the attack.

2- Attack positon and methodology:
This is heavily dependent on what your using, as well as what you're facing.
In any engagement with armor, you want to have everyone with small arms join in the initial attack, and assign targets to everyone (or put people in groups with targets). Needless to say, these people should GTFO and displace to a new position within five seconds of attacking.
Incendiary liquids should be targeted primarily at the read engine block, or on the front of the vehicle/turrent to impede the crews operation of the vehicle.
Explosives should be used on the weakest part of the vehicle facing your position, or that can be made to be facing you.

The key is to keep it simple.
Whatever you have, what's the best way (in the terrain you're in) that it can be used that is as safe as possible for you and your people.

3- Tactics. The more people you have, the better your chances.
Need the engine exposed ? Get the turret to turn to one side with a diversion team down an alley and ready to GTFO, with cover prepared out of sight)as much as possible.
Got explosives ? You too can disable the drive gear if you can get that explosive into it.
Only got small arms and a few hunting rifles ?
Study the fuck out of the tank you're facing, and pair the best shots with people who know how to break a tank to act as spotters, and target the external optics tankers use to see, then all you gotta deal with is a blind tank.

It all comes down to taking your weapon, deciding on the fastest way to employ it to cause damage, then getting the fuck out.
It's best to keep your tactics as simple as possible, less to fuck up.

Of course, the biggest exception to all I said above is the hatches.
If a hatch is open, you aim for the inside so the rounds bounce and hopefully hit people or better yet toss an explosive inside.

If you have numbers, use them. Feints and distractions can make your force much more powerful.

ATGMs are use offensively in one of two ways, either as a fire support weapon launched from a parked vehicle or hasty fighting position, or as a heavy-hitting ambush weapon.

In the case of the former, the ATGM launcher can be mounted to a suitable vehicle such as a light truck. Pic related.

As friendly forces advance and encounter hard resistance from built up positions, the missile trucks can be brought just within safe effective range (~800m) and the missiles used to destroy static defence positions and dug-in enemy vehicles. If friendly vehicles are not available, missile teams can make a hasty position to set up two or three missiles with a shallow foxhole for the missileer. The missile team must have a good radioman and practice in coordinating fires with assault teams. A map and a way of encoding targets before the assault is essential. A call for fire might sound like: "Sector red, grid A-5, number 6, window southwest B-1", corresponding to fire coming from a particular window (grid coordinates, second row first column of windows on the SW side) in a particular building (marked No. 6 of 9 on the map), in a particular map grid (First row, fifth column) of a colored map sector (map is divided into four quadrants with an overlay, shaded Red - Blue - Green - White going clockwise from the upper left.) This allows for precise control of fires and marking of enemy positions by frontline teams.

ATGMs can be used in singular fashion as a diversion also. Nothing quite says "HEY FAGGOT, GET SUM!" like the IFV overwatching your checkpoint taking a missile hit out of the blue. Enemy airpower will almost certainly be diverted to the area, as the enemy force would not want to risk armored pursuit when there might be more ATGMs waiting. This draws close air and surveillance assets away from other areas, providing an opportunity to the attackers. Single ATGMs might also be used at long range against thin-skinned vehicles like transport trucks, but only if the cargo they carry is worth the trouble and expense. Of all small-production heavy weapons, the ATGM is the most costly and sophisticated. They should not be wasted, ever. Only critical targets like fuel trucks, armored limousines, and munitions transports are really worth their use. These principles apply only to mobile, offensively-used ATGMs and not the much more typical static ambush employments.

Cover and concealment are critical in proper emplacement of the more ordinary ATGM team. The missile launch stands themselves should be well concealed, and the missileer and his control box provided with at least modest cover and good concealment. He must have at least a small screen of infantry at his flanks, preferably with a few PZFs, to protect him from enemy infantry screens, and charging troops and vehicles. The chief defense against ATGM threat is for the victim of the attack to immediately open fire at the missileer's position with all available weapons while changing direction erratically and deploying smoke. Since the missileer is flying the missile by hand, if they can force him to miss or duck down, they can make him miss. The less they can see of the launch site and missileer's position and the less effective their rounds are against it, the less effective this countermeasure is. The second most common countermeasure is for the target vehicle to either seek immediate cover in the terrain, such as ducking behind trees or a hill so that their infantry support can attack the missile position, or if caught on open, flat ground at closer range, to assault the missile position at high speed. The infantry teams supporting the ATGM have the responsibility of blocking or blunting such active countermeasures.

At any rate, an ATGM position should not be maintained for a great length of time. If the missile team sticks around the same launch sight for more than two or three missile firings, they will no doubt find enemy air support paying them a visit. That is not a fight they can win unless they are operating from VERY heavy-covered, fortified, and interconnected positions that had been specially prepared well in advance. When not OPERATING in such a fortress-assemblage, each of the missile teams should be satisfied at getting one, maybe two surprise hits in and pulling out to the next position before the enemy can react.

~tbc

Or just give every squad cheap and obsolete RPGs.
Every 10-man squad having two grenadiers along with two other assistants to carry a backpack full of rockets. And every other person in the squad carries one or two rockets. Give the grenadiers submachine guns, or light AKMS folders, AKS-74U Krinks, or SKS carbines for self defense (or some other carbine whose ammo is the same as the riflemen).

Having a LOT of antitank grenadiers can frustrate an attacker. Look at the 2003 Iraq War and insurgency. The large amount of RPG grenadiers made things difficult. The gunners and AK-toting riflemen were shooting wildly, but the fire from RPGs would give the US forces pause.

I am guessing this is a take-down paratrooper's RPG-7D.

Russian RPG-18 and RPG-26.

Russian RPG-18 Mukha, RPG-26 Aglen', RPG-27 Tavolga, RPG-29 Vampire, & RPO-A Shmel.

But the accessibility and inexpensiveness of the old RPG-7 makes it still desirable.

Russian RPG-26

Russian RPG-26 used by a Kyrgyzstani rioter.

A member of the Iraqi Security Force (ISF) Commandos, 2nd Squad (SQD), 1st Platoon (PLT), 1st Company (CO), 9th Battalion (BN), 2nd Brigade (BDE), performs a foot patrol, armed with a rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launcher, through Cooley Camp, a neighborhood near the Habbaniyah Airbase. ISF perform security and stabilization operations (SASO) in Al Anbar Province Iraq in support of Operation IRAQI FREEDOM.

Location: COOLEY CAMP, AL ANBAR IRAQ (IRQ)

Date: 28 April 2005

The SMAW was field tested in Iraq and the thermobaric warhead proved successful (at crushing and roasting people in buildings).

A Marine shows his Timor Leste Defence Force counterpart how to operate a shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon during a training exercise in Seisal, Timor Leste. The Marine is from Company E, Battalion Landing Team 2/4, the ground combat element of the 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit.

US SMAW Mk. 153 83mm rocket launcher.

U.S. Marines with Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force 24 show Peruvian marines how to fire a shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon in Salinas, Peru, on July 10, 2010. The U.S. Marines are embarked aboard the transport dock ship USS New Orleans (LPD 18) in support of Partnership of the Americas/Southern Exchange, a combined amphibious exercise with maritime forces from Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia.

Marines with Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force 24 show Peruvian Marines how to fire a shoulder-launched multipurpose assault weapon in Salinas, Peru, July 10. The U.S. Marines were embarked aboard transport dock ship USS New Orleans (LPD 18) in support of Partnership of the Americas/Southern Exchange, a combined amphibious exercise with maritime forces from Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Brazil, Uruguay and Colombia.

Cpl. Paul Avery (left) and Cpl. Matt Raley, both with weapons platoon, Company B, 1st Battalion, 23rd Marine Regiment, hold up a Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon coined ‘The Schickster’ in honor of their friend Cpl. Jacob P. Schick. ‘The Schickster’ was fired at enemy insurgents during the battle for Fallujah in November 2004.

The Shoulder-Launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon (SMAW) is a shoulder-launched rocket weapon, based on the Israeli B-300, with the primary function of being a portable assault weapon (e.g. bunker buster) and a secondary anti-armor rocket launcher. It was introduced to the United States armed forces in 1984. It has a maximum range of 500 metres (550 yd) against a tank-sized target.

It can be used to destroy bunkers and other fortifications during assault operations as well as other designated targets with the dual mode rocket and to destroy main battle tanks with the HEAA rocket. Recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have seen a thermobaric rocket added (described as NE—"Novel Explosive"), which is capable of collapsing a building.

The Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon has an 83.5mm tube and fires 83-millimetre (3.3 in) rockets. It is a man-portable weapon system consisting of the MK153 launcher, the MK 3 encased HEDP rocket, the MK 6 encased HEAA rocket, and the MK217 spotting rifle cartridge. The launcher consists of a fiberglass launch tube, a 9mm spotting rifle, an electro-mechanical firing mechanism, open battle sights and a mount for the MK42 Day Sight and AN/PVS-17B night sights.

The SMAW MK153 Mod 0 launcher, based on Israel Military Industries' B-300 weapon, consists of the launch tube, the spotting rifle, the firing mechanism and mounting brackets. The launch tube is made of fiberglass-epoxy composite material with a gelcoat on the bore. The spotting rifle, a British design (derived from the LAW 80), is mounted on the right side of the launch tube. The firing mechanism mechanically fires the spotting rifle and uses a magneto to fire the rocket. The mounting brackets connect the components and provide the means for boresighting the weapon while the encased rockets are loaded at the rear of the launcher. The spotting cartridges are stored in a magazine in the cap of the encased rocket.

The 9mm spotting round is ballistically matched to the rocket and serves to increase the gunner's first-round hit probability. Each round consists of a special 9mm tracer bullet, crimped into a 7.62x51mm NATO casing with a .22 Hornet blank cartridge for propellant. The system can be used in conjunction with the AN/PEQ-4 aiming light in place of the spotting rifle.
Training is accomplished with the MK7 Mod 0 encased common practice rocket and the MK213 Mod 0 noise cartridge. At 152.3 decibels, the weapon is one of the loudest on the battlefield, second only to a mine-clearing line charge.

Like many other rocket weapons, backblast is a significant safety concern. The backblast extends in a 90-meter, 60° cone to the rear of the weapon. The backblast is lethal out to 30 metres (98 ft), and still extremely dangerous to 90 metres (300 ft). The resultant shock wave can even cause sympathetic detonation of unsecured ammunition.

Rockets:
The High Explosive, Dual Purpose (HEDP) rocket is effective against bunkers, masonry and concrete walls and light armor. Initiated by a crush switch in its nose the HEDP rocket is able to distinguish between hard and soft targets resulting in greater penetration into soft targets for increased damage potential. The HEDP round is capable of penetrating 20 centimetres (7.9 in) of concrete, 30 centimetres (12 in) of brick or up to 210 centimetres (6.9 ft) of wood-reinforced sandbags.

The High Explosive Anti-Armor (HEAA) rocket is effective against current tanks without additional armor and utilizes a standoff rod on the detonator, allowing the explosive force to be focused on a small point and for maximum damage against armored targets. The HEAA round is capable of penetrating up to the equivalent of 60 centimetres (24 in) of rolled homogeneous steel.

The Novel Explosive (SMAW-NE) rocket is effective against caves and bunkers. The SMAW-NE uses a thermobaric warhead which produces an overpressure wave capable of collapsing a lightly constructed building. The Naval Surface Warfare Center teamed with the Marine Corps Systems Command, NSWC Dahlgren and Talley Defense Systems responded to an urgent U.S. Marine Corps need for a shoulder-launched enhanced-blast warhead in 2003. It was used in combat during both the First and Second offensives in Fallujah 2004. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoulder-launched_Multipurpose_Assault_Weapon

- Lance Cpl. Craig W. Mehlenbeck (Left)and Lance Cpl. Brandon Duff, both assaultmen from Weapons Platoon, Alpha Company, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, load a high explosive rocket into their MK153 Shoulder-fired, Multi-purpose, Assault Weapon (SMAW) in the mountains of Djibouti, Africa, during a live fire range March 28, 2010. 24th MEU Marines performed a series of sustainment exercises, as well as bi-lateral training alongside the French military, during a month-long rotation of units from 24th MEU conducting training in the east-African country. The 24th MEU currently serves as the theatre reserve force for Central Command.

AT4 (also variously AT-4, AT4 CS, AT4-CS, or AT-4CS) is an 84-mm unguided, portable, single-shot recoilless smoothbore weapon built in Sweden by Saab Bofors Dynamics (previously Bofors Anti-Armour Systems). Saab has had considerable sales success with the AT4, making it one of the most common light anti-tank weapons in the world.

A cloud of smoke and dust envelopes U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Michael Mullahy seconds after he fired an AT-4 rocket launcher at an insurgent position during a firefight in Baghdad's Adhamiyah neighborhood June 16 which ended with one insurgent dead and three captured. Mullahy is a squad leader with Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 26th Infantry Regiment.

Lance-roquette anti-char AT 4CS du 2e Régiment étranger d'infanterie (France)

U.S. Marine Corps Lance Cpl. Tyler Carroll fires an AT-4 during live-fire training, Jan. 18, 2008, at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait. Marines with Company C, Battalion Landing Team 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, Calif., are training as part of their current deployment to the Pacific and Arabian Gulf.

I guess the backblast threw all the discarded brass and links around.

A Soldier from 2-1 Inf., 5th Bde., 2nd Inf. Div. fires an AT4 during training at Range 59.

Dirt gets stirred up as U.S. Army Pfc. Erik Tyson, of 2nd Platoon, Delta Company, 1st Battalion, 4th Infantry Regiment, U.S. Army Europe, fires an AT-4 anti-tank rocket during a live-fire exercise outside Combat Outpost Sangar in Zabul province, Afghanistan, July 1, 2010.

>>8403

"Gee Bill, your mom lets you wear THREE different camo patterns?"

The chief role of the ATGM is the same as when it was originally conceived - a defensive weapon against a thrust by armored vehicles. When OPERATING from concealment and launched with surprise, a sudden onslaught of ATGMs into the flanks of a vehicle column can stop it cold.

Defensive ATGMs are utilized mainly by four means:

>Well camouflaged field positions at the forward line of defense (concealed foxholes) to engage approaching vehicles before they reach the defense line.

>Dug in and hardened (against air attack) positions in a defense-in-depth with interlocking fields of fire.

>Staggered far to the rear of a forward anti-tank defense line, so that their range lets them engage at the same time as close-in antitank weapons like PZFs, for massed fire at the line.

>Set in pairs in concealed ambush positions along lanes of enemy approach, and using natural "loopholes" in the terrain such as a gap between buildings or a narroy opening between to outcrops of trees.

The purpose for using loopholes is to mask the firing position from the target vehicle's support. If the missile volley flies through a narrow (a few to a few dozens of meters depending on distance) gap before striking the target, only the target vehicle will have a clear line of sight to the launcher - the view of the other vehicles is blocked by the obstructions to the sides of the gap. And the target vehicle will hopefully be too busy burning and/or exploding to retaliate itself. This gives the missile team time to fire a second volley, or to pack up and GTFO if necessary. Terrain masking such as this is very important against a mobile enemy with superior firepower. It is the ideal way to ambush with ATGMs.

The alternative to natural loopholes is hardened and dug-in fixed firing positions. These are rarely encountered in small-war environments due to the amount of labor and lack of mobility involved, but can still prove highly effective - as Hezbollah demonstrated against Israeli tanks in the 2006 Lebanon war. To withstand air attack and artillery bombardment, positions should be constructed in well dug-in locations with several feet of overhead cover. A thickness of 40 inches of alternating layers of logs and packed soil is generally sufficient except against precision-guided weapons. It is still effective against these by providing good camouflage, including camouflage of thermal signatures, but will be destroyed if detected and hit. Fighting positions should be connected by tunnels or communications trenches, so troops can move from position to position under cover and concealment. Radios, medical supplies, and weapons should be stored within the positions themselves, ready for use. Such positions are situated forward and to the flanks of avenues of approach and carefully concealed, with an overall defensive firing plan established ahead of time. Remember - multiple, surprise flank and rear shots and then GTFO, is the name of the game.

In the forward line positions, the missileer is emplaced in a concealed foxhole, with the launch stands concealed nearby. At first sight of the enemy and on orders to engage, he fires all his missiles one by one and then withdraws into the defense. Such missile teams work in pairs, with their lanes of fire crossing. The team on the right engages targets approaching on the LEFT. The team on the left engages targets coming on the RIGHT. This provides for shots at the flanks of incoming vehicles, albeit at a slight angle. The two teams have to coordinate and ensure that each doesn't let his partner get overrun. Several such forward teams, staggered and spread in a line, constitute the first defensive line against a vehicle-borne attack.

ATGMs set up in the rear of the forward defense line are used as support weapons. With a central controller coordinating fires, these missiles are launched as enemy vehicles are coming into range of the line's PZF gunners, and/or if they are about to be overrun. The goal is to coordinate a brief, nasty counterattack where PZF gunners are furiously launching AT rounds at the same time the missiles are impacting. This essentially rains down a concentrated burst of anti-tank weapons fire all at once to reduce the enemy force. Positions should be set up several hundred yards behind the AT defense line, and well concealed. Because the enemy is on the verge of overrunning the position anyway, multiple volleys are likely not possible and the teams should relocate immediately after firing, unless they are providing covering fire for the withdrawing AT line troops.

>>8447

The dotted lines in this image show the natural "loopholes" in an urban battlefield. ATGMs fired through these gaps between buildings limit the target's view and options for countering you.

Dear Sir
Hope you are well
I am working in mine clearance program and I need some pictures of AT mines.

>>9285
That is seriously a bizarre way to make a request

>>9285

>I am working in mine clearance program
>need some pictures of AT mines

ummmmm shouldn't you already know what they look like?

>>9285
Seems legit

Thanks whoever brought this thread back from the dead. It reminded me to post this little nugget.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/63824047/60742473-to-catch-a-tank-big-game-hunting-made-easy-usa-1972

To Catch a Tank: Big Game Hunting Made Easy. A manual written in comic book form for US troops back in the early 70s on how infantry could prevail against armor threats.

>>8386
Czech army, not arabs.

>>9315

Just bought a copy. Thanks for posting that!

Also you can read it here:

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109317

Scroll down.

Acid Man, I was wondering, now that I've stumbled across an article indicating that my hometown PD has an MRAP, if you've got any advice or material on how one would go about disabling such a vehicle?

I suppose the basics are all the same, but I was wondering if there were any specifics for the MRAP now that they're common around the US?

It doesn't have a main gun, so I suppose immobilizing it and lighting it on fire or hitting the top with an EFP works, but even so...thoughts?

It depends on the armor package really.

The most current military MRAPS are running with the FRAG-6 kit, which is impervious to most EFPs from the sides and front. I slightly doubt that your PD would have one of these top of the line kits.

If it were me:

>Multiple EFPs daisychained and firing into one side. Three sounds about right. Go for the nose end to get the engine and/or driver. That stops it.

>Rifle team / claymores concealed at the rear to take out dismounting infantry.

>Shaped charge bombs to punch holes in the roof.

>Gas cans on the punctured roof and engine deck. Burn it out.

Really just a couple EFPs would make it unusable if you got the engine. This is just the "total destruction" path. You could also use a couple satchel charges stuffed into the wheelwells to blow the suspension and drivetrain apart if you're in a hurry.

All depends on just how dead you want it.

Also worth note, if you can manage to get an MRAP's tire(s) on fire, it is or will very shortly be a mobility kill. Once those xbox huge tires get ignited, there is no putting them out short of a firetruck showing up and spraying it with its hose for about 30min-1hr. If more than one tire catches, that thing will burn like a rubber factory for god knows how long. Every single time any given MRAP's tire caught while we were in country it was SOP to get all crew and sensitive items out ASAP and remain in cordon until recovery arrived if a recovery element wasn't already moving with us

Got my copy of that book in today. In celebration I shall be posting the caps from that thread I linked.

Gotta love the TNA factor they used to put into these.

End.

And here's the "Eagle Fireball" recipe the book talks about.

>>6297
It's not daunting at all. Advance warning that a massive and thorough search and destroy mission is coming to your neighborhood? That's easy.

You hide all of your shit and leave the area like a regular civilian. Then you return after the superior force declares victory and leaves. Better to leave beforehand with your gear to avoid risk of sabotage or capture, but that might not be possible. Priority one is always to survive.

>>6228
>>6228
Draw the tanks into an urban environment.

Use the sewers in your own predefined killzone to house supplies and men.

Surprise ambush them and Flood the air intakes with a Class B fire extinguisher.

>>9450
Dear Acid Man,

where is this excerpt, I am relating to, from?

Sincerely, 0p3r4t0r.

PS: titties in advance.

(USER WAS MEDICALLY DISCHARGED FOR TERMINAL CROTCH ROT)
(Everyone likes titties, but don't post them in a worksafe board, dude)

>>11299
understood

>>8381
no shit? but where do I get them from? this whole thread and strategies are built on ridiculous premises. civilians rushing tanks? AT-rockets? rifles and ammo? 404, not found!

the only thing that I can think of is using civilian mining/demolition explosives to bring down tall building on tanks at bottlenecks or making them into shaped charges/IEDs fired from camouflaged manholes. maybe one or the other gas station can be used as a trap if they are stupid enough to try to use local fuel.

against clearing infantry:

>oil/soap on stairs
>water/electricity traps
>acid traps
>spiked weights falling in doors traps
>razor wire at ankle/throat heights (in front of stairs)
>shotgun traps
>carbon monoxide flooded cellars
>stove gas traps

anything that is not remote controlled from a distance is just stupid. if you were warned, jerry rig as much as you can and evacuate. anything else is suicide for untrained civilians.

>>11305
Amateur rocket builders have shown that making things fly far and fast is not a difficult proposition. With a bit of care they could even be made to fly accurate.
In a country with wealth and modern materials available, rocket propelled explosives wouldn't be overly difficult. Hell, someone could probably build a rocket barrage, fire and aim it using facetime and some easy as balls android app.

>>11306
good luck with that and RIP.

>>11309
No anti material rocket building for me.
For the mental exercise I was just making a statement that it is possible. More so than most likely think.

>>11310
>No anti material rocket building for me.

anti material != anti tank. a .338 winmag loaded with a hardened steel bullet made from bar stock turned to the propper diameter could be considered anti material in the broadest sense but it would do very little against APCs/tanks. except maybe if you have a dozen of very good shooters who then start destroying optics and sensors on the tanks, slowly blinding them.

>For the mental exercise I was just making a statement that it is possible. More so than most likely think.

even if you managed to rig up a panzerfaust which would be a great feat in itself, how effective would it really be against modern MBTs, possibly sporting urban survival upgrades?

also:

>ram it and flip it with pic related from behind a corner

  >>11311

This thread was a companion thread to several others in /w/ /k/ and /stem/ that detailed how such weapons and material were to be made. It's not a standalone.

Also, RPGs are not especially hard to make. Hamas makes their own by the dozen from shitty materials in tiny machine shops. One made in a professional shop by math-savvy Murrikans would be 10X better.

>>11641
>One made in a professional shop by math-savvy Murrikans would be 10X better.

more like

>burger/american bear blew himself to kingdom come

also, good luck home brewing your HE from sugar, pipe cleaner, nitro and fertilizer. ever notice how those haddschis get a few (sometimes impressive) kills but then end up dead themselves? this is not a viable option for people not believing in sky-wizards.

>>11646

>good luck home brewing your HE from sugar, pipe cleaner, nitro and fertilizer

As opposed to "home brewing" it in a nitrator from purified reagents, operated by a couple 20-somethings with chemistry degrees?

Quality control is a choice. Its balanced by available materials and time, certainly, but those who want to spend the two to maximize quality have nothing stopping them from doing so.

Or do you really think of your fellow American's technical prowess to be on the same level as an uneducated hadji's? I posit that access to modern chemicals and electronics, and the present dearth of unemployed, over qualified chemists, physicists, and engineers in the US would come out on top in ways third world sand people could scarcely dream of.

What would Allahu Durka Akbar III give for a thousand bucks and couple hours with a Radio Shack catalog?

>>11647
good luck bringing down a Leopard 2A7+ with DIY HEAT weapons. footage of syria may project a bit of a deceiving picture as Assad's T-72 have no working HE lining in their ERA bricks (yes, they have a best before date!) and thus work only as limited standoff armour. Also, the muds use RPG-7 and RPG-29 and other assorted AT weapons and unless it's a lucky shot, they need several of those.

And that is all a matter of size. A Maverick has over 200lbs of high explosive in it, for instance. If its warhead can't penetrate a hypothetical Leo2A7, you make one that has 300lbs and a bigger cone diameter and you try again.

2.7 Meters. That's the current record for biggest shaped charge ever detonated, as I understand it.

That'll penetrate, roughly, FORTY FEET of solid armor if it were used as a weapon.

It was also built by college students studying geology.

Acid's First Law of Military Physics: If you can't break something, get a bigger hammer.

>>11650

>Acid's First Law of Military Physics: If you can't break something, get a bigger hammer.

you must be a follower of the Home Improvement school of thought. hurr hurr hurrr!

>>11651

And here I was trying to answer a question on a technical subject.

By all means though, "hurr durr durr." Some people understand the concepts, and others don't. Not everything that seems at first glance unworkable actually is. Crunched numbers and history > your gut feeling.

>>11651
Define bring it down. You don't have to completely destroy a tank to make it useless. Mobility kill can be achieved with basic RPG-7s. Knocking out optics for the gunner makes the tank almost useless.

You don't have to destroy a tank to take it out of combat for repairs or make it useless to repair.

>>11733

Interesting thing about your example is that a Panzerfaust made from modern materials (annealed copper cone, modern high explosives, a detonator with a booster) would actually out penetrate an RPG-7 by quite a lot.

By today's standards the PZF-60 has a big fucking warhead on it. All it lacks is range compared to the RPG. ~50m vs ~250 accurate range.

>>11780
>implying the panzerfaust didn't have a detonator with a booster
Acid Man wtf are you talking about.

The key to defeating a tank is not in penetrating its armor, the key is getting close enough to deliver a weapon. If you get close enough to Abrams to throw a molotov, or a thermite demo pack, you can just jam a potato in the engine emergency shutoff anyway.

In light of the purpose of the thread (light-infantry) lets ignore ambush/suicide weapons, IED, mines, vehicles and squad operated anti tank guns. For light infantry to attack a tank, your primary concern is the cover penetrating potential of the pintle machine guns. This is because the pintle covers the sides and rear of the turret, and if you find yourself in front of the turret you're fucked anyway.

At what range can the pintle mounted MG penetrate brick? concrete? earth? packed snow? That's the range at which infantry can attack a tank, with that specific cover available.

Source: Bazooka training manual for WWII. There's a cool vid on youtube based on the manual.

Tank-busters of WW2:
The primary killer of German heavy tanks (tigers, heavy assault guns & tank destroyers, etc.) was Allied airpower, mostly ground attack planes like the Soviet Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik, British Hawker Typhoon, US Republic P-47 Thunderbolt, etc. The Brits made specialized "tank-busters", such as the Hurricane Mk IID, armed with two 40mm Vickers S guns and the US fielded the North American B-25G/H Mitchell medium bomber which mounted a 75mm cannon in her nose (along with a LOT of .50 machine-guns) but this was mostly for attacking forts and ships, much like the British de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito FB Mk XVIII armed with a 57mm anti-tank gun. But rockets and bombs were mostly used on lumbering German tanks caught in the open or directed by ground troops.

The Vickers Class "S" 40 mm (1.57 in) gun was developed in the late 1930s as an aircraft weapon. The ammunition was based on the 40x158R cartridge case of the naval 2 pdr Anti-aircraft gun (the "Pom-pom"). The weapon was a long-recoil design derived from the 37 mm 1½pdr "COW gun" from Coventry Ordnance Works.The gun was originally intended as a bomber defensive weapon and was tested as such in a turret fitted to a modified Vickers Wellington II. This was not adopted for service, but when the need to attack tanks from the air was identified, the "S" gun was chosen and special armour-piercing ammunition developed.

Two underwing guns, mounted one beneath each wing panel each in conformal underwing gun pods, were fitted to Hawker Hurricane IID fighters which were issued to No. 6 Squadron RAF. They served in North Africa from mid-1942 where they achieved considerable success; claims included 148 tanks hit, of which 47 were destroyed, plus nearly 200 other vehicles. However, they suffered heavy losses, mainly to ground fire (the Hurricanes were poorly protected) and also lacked effectiveness against the Tiger tank. In 1944, the aircraft served in the Far East, mainly firing HE ammunition against road and river transports.

Tests in the Far East showed a high level of accuracy, with an average of 25% of shots fired at tanks striking the target. Attacks with HE were twice as accurate as with AP, possibly because the ballistics were a closer match to the .303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns used for sighting (the HE shell was lighter and was fired at a higher velocity). By comparison, the practice strike rate of the 60 pdr RPs (rocket projectiles) fired by fighter-bombers was only 5% against tank-sized targets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_S

- UK WW2 Hawker Hurricane Mk IID, armed two 40mm Vickers S guns, of 6 Squadron at Shandur, Egypt (1942).

The Bordkanone BK 3,7 ((on-)board cannon 37) was a 37mm anti-tank/bomber autocannon based on the earlier 37 mm Flak 18 made by Rheinmetall. It was mounted on World War II Luftwaffe aircraft such as the anti-tank or bomber-destroyer versions of the Junkers Ju 87D-3 and G-2, Henschel Hs 129B-2/R3,[citation needed] Messerschmitt Bf 110G-2/R1-3, and others. The cannon could be attached under the wings or fuselage of the aircraft as a self-contained gun pod with a 12-round magazine. It fired APCR (Tungsten hard core) ammunition or high explosive shells in 37x263B mm caliber at 160 rounds per minute.

BK-37 equipped ground attack aircraft were developed for use in the anti-tank role on the Eastern Front in a somewhat desperate effort to blunt the massive numerical superiority of the Soviet T-34 as the war turned against Germany. The concept was rather rudimentary, suffered from various issues (primarily poor accuracy, severe weight penalty making the craft vulnerable to fighters, and a low ammunition capacity), but could be extremely effective when operated by a sufficiently skilled and practiced ground-attack pilot (Hans-Ulrich Rudel in his BK-37 armed Stuka being the ultimate example).

The heavy caliber autocannon-armed series of Ju 88P twin-engined attack aircraft series used twin BK 3,7 cannon, mounted side-by-side in a conformal ventral fuselage gun pod, in its Ju 88P-2 and P-3 versions. The P-3 version only differed through the addition of extra defensive armor. As with other examples of the P-series, the Ju 88P-2 and P-3 were perceived as failures in both anti-tank and bomber destroyer role.

In contrast to the previous method (bombs delivered by dive bombing), when the BK-37 was employed in a top attack profile against the especially thin upper turret and engine compartment armor of a tank, kills could be achieved with a relatively light and cheap armor piercing projectile that could be carried in much greater quantities than bombs, but would be insufficient to penetrate if fired horizontally from the ground in the normal method.

- A Junkers Ju 87 Stuka with twin BK 37 gun pods attached to the underside of the wings.

A Junkers Ju 87 G "Kanonenvogel" captured tank buster in Salzburg Austria, 1945.
http://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/aircrafts-2/junkers-ju87-stuka/

  Hawker Hurricane Mk IID Tank Busters https://youtu.be/bIx_pMwjGyE
Hurricane Mk IIB conversion armed with two 40 mm (1.57 in) AT cannons in a pod under each wing and a single Browning machine gun in each wing loaded with tracers for aiming purposes. The first aircraft flew on 18 September 1941 and deliveries started in 1942. Serial built aircraft had additional armour for the pilot, radiator and engine, and were armed with a Rolls-Royce gun with 12 rounds, later changed to the 40 mm (1.57 in) Vickers S gun with 15 rounds. The outer wing attachments were strengthened so that 4G could be pulled at a weight of 8,540 lb (3,874 kg). The weight of guns and armour protection marginally impacted the aircraft's performance. These Hurricanes were nicknamed "Flying Can Openers", perhaps a play on the No. 6 Squadron's logo which flew the Hurricane starting in 1941.

The Hawker Typhoon was a great can-opener, after they worked the bugs out. The Typhoon's powerful engine with distinctive round supercharger under it allowed the aircraft to carry a load of up to two 1,000 lb bombs, equal to the light bombers of only a few years earlier. Typhoons were also armed with four "60 lb" RP-3 rockets under each wing. The rocket's accuracy was poor, but were devastating when they hit.

>>6238
You play too many video games.

A Forward Observer with artillery or even 120mm mortar support is more capable against tanks than aircraft UNLESS air dominance has been achieved. Even then, the likelihood of SAM and small arms fire can (and will likely) deter an attack pilot from accepting a CAS request against an armored enemy. I highly doubt you have any training on air support aside from the CAS thread I put on here a while back.

What OP is suggesting is useful when you don't have time for friendly forces to divert X-CAS or launch from a friendly air field. Given mission priorities, both are likely to be pulled to support ongoing operations anyways. Unless you're in the military and are deployed against an organized military force, you are more likely to find yourself against tanks in a civil war, martial law or a Red Dawn type scenario. In neither of those three cases are you likely to have air support and even in that first case, a Forward Observer or JTAC will be controlling the artillery and the air support.

In other words, you've made an ass of yourself.

>>11975
>In other words, you've made an ass of yourself.
>says the guy who shit a chicken over a speculative and highly generalized reply

Also, you're telling me that if troops ran across some armor in say Afghanistan, for whatever reason, that the BUFF flying loops around with a belly of JDAMs wouldn't give it a present?

Or possibly, more realistically, one of these that is in the area (pic related)?