Posted on May 25, 2015
Anti-Tank Guided Missiles in Syria, the new weapon of choice.
6.64K
18
15
4
4
0
I have been reading about the war in Syria. This gave me a perspective that I haven't thought about. The anti-Assad forces are armed to the teeth with these things. I have no clue how many have fallen into ISIS hands so far. I am sure they have plenty. With this being said I, for one, hope we don't go back into Iraq in force. I dread what it will look like. With weapons like this on the battlefield they can take a heavy toll on us. In Syria there are ripping apart Assad's Army as they just recently lost their first major city in a battle. His assets are sitting ducks and are being taken out. What would this do to MRAPs and other armed vehicles?
On a side note we call it the BGM-71 TOW. It is a US made weapon. I am sure it is not the only one they are using but it is common.
On a side note we call it the BGM-71 TOW. It is a US made weapon. I am sure it is not the only one they are using but it is common.
Armor
GWOT
ISIS
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 6
3
3
0
CPT (Join to see) I have been keeping up with the TTPs in both Syria and Iraq as they develop...well because its my job, and it is scary. ISIS mixes conventional military tactics/weapons with terrorist tactics in a very efficient and effective manner. I know a lot of people give the Iraqi Army a hard time, but the Syrian Army --with robust international backing-- isn't doing much better. If/when we end up finally confronting this cancer I offer two pieces of advice: 1) Bring a lunch we'll be there a while and 2) go ahead and tighten up that chin strap.
(3)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would greatly enjoy breaking bread and picking your mind on this. I also watch a lot of what is going on. It blows my mind how others see ISIS. They are a good fighting force. They are not winning by accident. They are a refined solid force that is using tactics to maximize their gains. Still I see people put them on par with the likes of the militias we fought in Iraq. ISIS is so much more than the Muhdi Army. If anyone thinks we are just going to blow through them they will find another thing coming.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Hamas used these effectively along with unconventional IEDs against Israeli forces a couple years ago and sent them limping back to Israel licking their wounds. It is the "hybrid threat" (conventional and unconventional warfare) that has been written and discussed about a lot in the past few years. Military analysts predict that the next major conflict will be a hybrid fight. Very scary.
Interesting assessment of the 2014 Gaza conflict below if you have some time.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Femetnews.org%2Fdocuments%2F2014-Gaza-Assessment-Report.pdf&ei=q2dkVbyuJcrLsASX14HIDA&usg=AFQjCNGtNi-C171KvMwPWIzU-l-iDnR-Iw&sig2=4YrhMT0YRgrQVnlBPw87oQ
Interesting assessment of the 2014 Gaza conflict below if you have some time.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Femetnews.org%2Fdocuments%2F2014-Gaza-Assessment-Report.pdf&ei=q2dkVbyuJcrLsASX14HIDA&usg=AFQjCNGtNi-C171KvMwPWIzU-l-iDnR-Iw&sig2=4YrhMT0YRgrQVnlBPw87oQ
(2)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
An interesting read, CSM (Join to see), but I would offer 2 significant caveats for drawing any widely applied conclusions from that conflict:
1) The IDF is probably the only military force significantly more casualty-averse than the U.S. Army, and that aversion has deep ramifications throughout its doctrine and tactics.
2) The Gaza operation was a remarkably static situation with extremely limited scope. The IDF chose to stand off and attrit Hamas -- there was no maneuver element, no attempt at encirclement, and direct assault was considered only as a last resort.
1) The IDF is probably the only military force significantly more casualty-averse than the U.S. Army, and that aversion has deep ramifications throughout its doctrine and tactics.
2) The Gaza operation was a remarkably static situation with extremely limited scope. The IDF chose to stand off and attrit Hamas -- there was no maneuver element, no attempt at encirclement, and direct assault was considered only as a last resort.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
1
1
0
CPT (Join to see), ATGMs are not a new problem for armor.
In conventional mounted operations, the overwatch element immediately engages the launch signature with all kinds of high-velocity ordinance, to either destroy the launcher (best) or make the missile operator flinch enough to either guide the round into the dirt or far enough up that he can't bring it back on target in time (adequate). A 120mm HEAT round moves out at almost 1700 meters per second -- backtracking the flight path 6 times faster than that TOW missile. The crews I saw in the video didn't look like they put a priority on out-of-action drills or shoot-and-scoot tactics -- it could be a tough learning curve for them.
Also, during the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli tankers learned to bait over-eager Sagger teams by skylining just long enough to attract a missile (or, rarely, two of them), then backing down into defilade to watch the missile fly overhead. There were published photos of Israeli tanks with several pairs of guidance wires draped across various parts of the vehicle.
In conventional mounted operations, the overwatch element immediately engages the launch signature with all kinds of high-velocity ordinance, to either destroy the launcher (best) or make the missile operator flinch enough to either guide the round into the dirt or far enough up that he can't bring it back on target in time (adequate). A 120mm HEAT round moves out at almost 1700 meters per second -- backtracking the flight path 6 times faster than that TOW missile. The crews I saw in the video didn't look like they put a priority on out-of-action drills or shoot-and-scoot tactics -- it could be a tough learning curve for them.
Also, during the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli tankers learned to bait over-eager Sagger teams by skylining just long enough to attract a missile (or, rarely, two of them), then backing down into defilade to watch the missile fly overhead. There were published photos of Israeli tanks with several pairs of guidance wires draped across various parts of the vehicle.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I would agree that ATGMs are not a new problem but we haven't see this used against us in Iraq. I can't recall any ATGM attacks on US forces. I am more concerned what they will do to an MRAP or Stryker. I know that a crew could fire of them before the missile impacts but you really got to be looking out for them. In an urban environment they are shooting these things from within buildings. That is not going to be an easy find.
(0)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
CPT (Join to see), just because you've never faced it in this millennium doesn't mean it's game over. It will mean that there are no "safe" tactics, and there is a very real risk that commanders will lose more troops to excessive caution if they let casualty avoidance drive their tactics (read "Pork Chop Hill" for a classic example of a battle which was longer and bloodier because the regiment sent minimal reinforcements).
TOWs (and all other ATGMs) don't work that well in urban situations. Minimum arming distance for a TOW is over 50 meters, and firing RPGs from rooftops is a much more effective counter-armor tactic than a tripod-mounted TOW. A good M240 crew or M249 gunner will make swiss cheese of that missile guidance unit much faster than anybody can attempt to move it, and that launch signature is much more noticeable than an RPG.
MRAPs are rolling targets on a conventional battlefield, with no maneuver capability and plenty of options for a mobility kill. Strykers and Bradleys are equally vulnerable to heavy ATGMs, which is why the overwatch element is critical in open terrain and dismounts are critical in closer terrain (see comments above about TOW-vs-M240 at a 2-block range).
TOWs (and all other ATGMs) don't work that well in urban situations. Minimum arming distance for a TOW is over 50 meters, and firing RPGs from rooftops is a much more effective counter-armor tactic than a tripod-mounted TOW. A good M240 crew or M249 gunner will make swiss cheese of that missile guidance unit much faster than anybody can attempt to move it, and that launch signature is much more noticeable than an RPG.
MRAPs are rolling targets on a conventional battlefield, with no maneuver capability and plenty of options for a mobility kill. Strykers and Bradleys are equally vulnerable to heavy ATGMs, which is why the overwatch element is critical in open terrain and dismounts are critical in closer terrain (see comments above about TOW-vs-M240 at a 2-block range).
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This is just one part (albeit a big part) of why I am so very concerned about the prospect of going back into Iraq.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
I will go where I am sent. Bring Mechanized Infantry is something that warrants a lot of enemy attention. I am sure they don't want some Bradleys anywhere near by them.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
.....and I wonder where those american weapons came from? *caughBengazicaugh*
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google