Could Anti-tank guns see a revival when APS make most ATGM's/missile

Some APS can defeat APFSDS, so no, probably not.

File: 1028909221.jpg (129KB, 1000x541px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1000x541px

>>34571458
Heavy recoilless rifles are more likely. The kind of AT guns required to combat modern armour are far too immobile and clumsy to operate effectively on a modern battlefield. They're an extremely niché weapon and not that good even at that.

APS are not really less effective against shells than missiles. The trick to beating APS is staying 1 step ahead of the curve with decoy technology. The most modern Kornet already has APS spoofing decoys.

File: Type 89.jpg (213KB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1600x1067px

>>34571458
No, for many reasons.

ATGMs have plenty of development space left in them; the race between guidance and protective technologies will go on for quite some time.

ATGMs are significantly more portable than towed or even small self-propelled anti-tank guns. Missile systems can be handled by small teams of foot soldiers or even a single man. AT guns require several crew members to operate as well as some sort of prime mover. Guns over ~40mm in caliber cannot be manhandled easily, and guns above ~75mm really cannot be manhandled at all over any significant distance. You're looking at a gun of at least 90-105mm to defeat modern tanks, so good luck making that as portable as a TOW or something.

The type of defensive tactics anti-tank guns were built around are now considered suicidal.

KEPs, as of right now, cannot be guided in flight. In fact, their entire purpose is to fly really straight as fast as possible. This is good for certain situations, but against a moving target it can be a challenge for untrained crews. Calculating drop and lead on a mobile target at range is a lot harder than just holding a crosshair over it.

The entire point of towed anti-tank guns were that they were simpler and easier to produce than actual tanks. Most industrialized nations capable of building a gun capable of killing a modern tank would be able to build/buy something a lot more practical.

The closest you'll probably ever see is something like pic related; designed to be cheaper than a proper MBT but carrying the same gun.

>>34571458
No, maneuver is king in warfare, and AT guns are slow, unless you put them on a vehicle chassis, in which case you've created a self-propelled AT gun....aka a tank destroyer.
Not to mention several APS systems can deal with APFSDS today, I know that the Russian ones either snap the penetrator or induce a lot of yaw.

ATGMs will still be the infantry's weapon against enemy armor. Improvements to terminal guidance, speed, decoys, and ECM will help counter APS.
Problem is, these new ATGMs will be heavier, more complicated and more expensive than current systems.

File: USMC_ITV_ESS.jpg (4MB, 2690x1755px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2690x1755px

>>34571894
>Problem is, these new ATGMs will be heavier, more complicated and more expensive than current systems.
That's what snowmobiles, ATVs and other light vehicles are for. Wasn't the Growler purchased partially for this reason as well?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51d3s9FevyY

File: cv90.jpg (117KB, 1196x796px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1196x796px

>>34571458
Unliekly. But tank destroyers (large guns on a light chassies? Perhaps.

>>34571458
Look up LOSAT/CKEM.

Also, look up multiple-EFP warheads, and multi-fuse technology. Those give ATGMs the ability to potentially saturate an APS by firing multiple kinetic slugs simultaneously towards the less-protected surfaces of the target, from a range beyond what the APS covers (EFPs are stable and effective out past 100', I believe).

>>34572023
Artillery with submunitions exists as well. Stuff like Bonus are extremely effective against armoured units.

>>34571646
For handheld ATGM the amount of space you can stuff decoys into is severely limited so suddently infantry can no longer realistically engage armoured units unsupported, or would have systems so large that they would need to be mounted on a wheeled carriage, creating weapons that for all intents and purposes function like towed anti-tank guns.

I used to think similarly; but reaction speed doesn't seem to be a limit to APS; to the point where quickkill could theoretically intercept a sabot fired from literally 15 feet away

File: BRDM-2 9P122.jpg (2MB, 2304x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2304x1728px

>>34572065
I think you're talking about a lot of thus unproven hypothetical systems here. As long as a simple RPG-7 can M-Kill an Abrams or T-72, larger contemporary ATGMs will be at least somewhat effective against a considerable range of APS-equipped tanks.

Also, the idea of mounting any ATGM system on a wheeled carriage is idiotic and will likely never see use with any major army; again, towed anti-tank guns (and weapons in general) don't work on the modern battlefield. The missiles may get larger, but the solution to this is a self-propelled mount, not a towed one. Pic related. In the same way that tank guns can be mounted on smaller, less expensive chassis to make modern "tank destroyers", so to can ATGMs be mounted on even smaller and cheaper vehicles.

As an aside, if you're building MANPATS that are too big for the MAN part, you've failed at that job. ie, if we reach a point where tank armor and protection becomes too great to be defeated by infantry-based weapons, then we should probably not try to use infantry to take out tanks anymore. We learned this lesson during WWII (the US especially); When your towed guns and bazookas can't do the job, it's time to stop trying to force the infantry to kill tanks.

>>34572172
that thing is so fucking cute i want to kiss it

>>34571458
That's a big gun.

>>34571458
>APS make most ATGM's/missile systems dated?
Uhhh, in what world?

>>34572828
4 U

>>34571486
lol

Spike II and TOW 2A/2B both include counter-APS jammers.

It doesn't matter whether your APS fires fancy smoke, directed blast, or shrapnel; it's all bottlenecked through a radar aka ESM targeting beacon.

Sensor fused artillery EFPs detonate 50 to 100 meters away. Most APS have ranges of 10-20m.

If ATGMs truly start sucking (and between hypersonics, EFPs, and ECM, it won't be anytime soon), infantry will simply need a faster (automated?) call for fire system. Unlike infantry, tanks can't hide inside houses when artillery rains.

>>34571458
Some revival, maybe. In the form of the cheapo 40-57mm guns shooting APFSDS. Can punch through tanks side or all these new fancy 8x8 that were supposed to have APS in teh future. Relatively cheap and low tech APS counter for the 3rd world countries. Can be towed by Toyota Hilux.

Full size 120mm+ AT guns would be too expensive and cumbersome to be tactically viable.

>>34572988
>Sensor fused artillery EFPs detonate 50 to 100 meters away.
> infantry will simply need a faster (automated?) call for fire system.
Or tie down SF EFP to a TOW and let it fly 50-100 meters above target...

>>34575034
norinco made an AT gun in the 90s that can frontally pen T72s

>>34572120
Do you even know what this is?
5 sheckels for anyone who does, without reverse image search.

>>34575219
Nigger, my 10mm can penetrate a T72 frontal lyrics other hot loads

>>34575275
is it the Israel MBT, the merkaver or some shit?

>>34575060
TOW 2B uses dual standoff EFPs for top attack, though the antique sensors limit it to a couple meters directly above the target.

I guess a sensor and firmware upgrade would be relatively simple.

>>34575323
No.
No sheckels for you.

Most modern if not all self propelled and field artillery pieces can lower there guns enough for direct fire. In the us at least all gun crews are trained for it. So in a pinch any us field artillery can act as a anti tank gun, and something like a paladin can be a tank destroyer. Hence no need for dedicated anti tank guns. Especially in today's rapid maneuver warfare.

>>34571646
>>34572172
>>34572065
>>34571894
So atgms mounted on technicals are the future tank destroyers.

>>34571646
For semi skilled gunlaying, one way is to use a laser range finder mounted off digital setting circles to feed targeting information to a gunlaying computer that uses the gun's known firing characteristics to compute a firing solution and output it to indicators for the gunlaying wheels. This can also be applied to antiaircraft guns.

>>34572120
Everyone knows what that is! It's an Israeli Patton Tank with ERA.

File: sprint-launch-path-lta.jpg (59KB, 485x730px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 485x730px

>>34571458
More likely ATGMs will just get faster.

>>34575302
are you ok? you sound like you had a stroke 3/4 the way through typing that

File: Pereh missile carrier face.png (677KB, 460x630px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 460x630px

>>34575275

Pereh

>>34575275
Israeli Patton ERA+

No. More likely than not, ATGM's will just get faster.

>>34575275
Fake tonk that conceals super anti tank weapons.

>>34575450
>laser range finder
If you can train your grunts to use it very carefully and only briefly for ranging purposes without directly illuminating the target great, otherwise you just told the target HEY I WANT TO SHOOT YOU FROM OVER HERE, especially if you're sat there tracking the thing for several seconds waiting while your gunner.

At best they've popped smoke and moved, at worst they've seen your position after Shtora/equivalent has indicated your direction and you're now in a race between manually laying your gun and firing, and their FCS giving their gunner his green light.

>>34572120
Persh or someshit? Was in Wargame Red Dragon

>>34575663
Point taken, it could be possible to gunlay without lasing the target, but that would require two or more units preregistered to each other and in communication and simultaneously tracking the target.

I originally thought of the concept as a way of reviving antiaircraft artillery by executing the Kerrison predictor electronically and simplifying the imput process by using a laser range finder and setting circles. The idea is to ideally have the gun mount motorized and the whole setup be a SACLOS gunlaying system.

File: 240mm.jpg (412KB, 1388x1104px) Image search: [Google]

412KB, 1388x1104px

to disable a modern tank they would have to be fuckhuge therefor impractical

File: image_1_0.jpg (47KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 600x600px

>>34571646
I just realized how fucking nifty a towed 90mm cockerill would be for second world militaries

>>34576065
You realize a 120mm cannon from a retired Abrams is just as powerful if you dismount it, right?

>>34576330
hol' up hol' up so u sayin we culd make anti-tank guns that fire that same ammunition?? shieeeeeeeeeettttt

>>34576312
Wat? My country used to operate 90 mm armed Scorpions in the 80's.

>>34571458
at guns were never really effective at any point in military history
even at-mines do a better job
it was just handed down to the inf so they have the feeling to have a chance against tanks

panzerfaust/rpg and shit is the best at-infantry weapon

>>34576992
youre full of shit tankers were more scared of guns than tanks

>>34571969
also powered exoskeletons

Hypersonic MANPATS when?