.
I thought a bit about what's the minimum variety of weapons and vehicles for land war in Europe, as a thought exercise to create clarity, kind of cutting away the fat. The list follows, but be prepared to disagree violently. Keep in mind, this is a minimum list, not an optimum list. The thought exercise is about what do we really need?
Contents:
- minimum weapons list
- justifications for the list
- minimum radar support
- minimum vehicle variety list
(1) offensive hand grenade*
instalaza.com/producto/granada-alhambra/?lang=en
(2) assault rifle with red dot sight (5.56x45 mm M855A1 EPR round, 14.5" barrel)
 |
| Why illustration with an M4? Because the mass production made it cheap. |
(3) "automatic rifle" (assault rifle with thicker barrel and adjustable bipod for light machinegun role)
(4) HEDP rifle grenade* can hit & penetrate BMP target reliably @ 100 m, graze PDSQ & delay fusing modes, off-centre nose spike, bullet trap
 |
| Most HEDP rifle grenades have a IMO too weak HEAT at 35 or 40 mm diameter. Few bullet traps could stop an EPR round reliably, so no legacy type is fully satisfactory. |
(5) short-range anti-MBT weapon* (RPG-28/RPG-30 combo as anti-APS solution)
(6) fibre-optic guided missile (5 km, tandem HEAT + preformed fragments warhead, MWIR seeker)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALAS_(missile)#RALAS
(7) Martlet LMM (dual use missile against slow&low air targets and BMP-class vehicles, HEDP warhead) with LML NG launcher
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martlet_(missile)
(8) RCWS with MG3 (installed on most vehicles in the field, effective against drones & loitering munitions)
/2017/08/very-low-level-air-defence-against.html
(9) wheeled 155 mm SPG (either 52cal with limited traverse or four-legged 39 cal for all-round traverse, no autoloader, power ramming, modern positioning/northfinding & fire control)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATMOS_2000
(10) Tamir missile launcher (Iron Dome's SAM)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Dome
Justifications:
1. Defensive (with fragmentation sleeve) hand grenades are a hazard to the user in many situations, as their fragmentation effect has a larger danger radius than an offensive hand grenade's mere blast effect. Convertible hand grenades weigh more, are not significantly more useful in practice and the screw on/screw off of the frag sleeve is an opportunity for fussing around in combat stress.
2. A red dot sight is the easiest for quickly gaining marksman proficiency and is fine out to 300 m. It also avoids tunnel vision, as both eyes can stay open. Downside; no magnification means that the sight does not help with target ID. Section leaders need binoculars (minimum 8x21).
3. I expect 90% would expect some longer-ranged infantry weapons including "sniper" rifles and belt-fed machineguns as well. This is a doctrinal choice of mine. Break (line of sight) contact if you get shot at from beyond 300 m, for you have exposed yourself too much, period. Commonality with the assault rifle helps to cut down training requirements.
4. Rifle grenade are out of fashion in many countries and one might miss the greater effective anti-BMP range of a LAW (~200 m instead of ~100 m). The HEDP rifle grenade should rather be thought of as something that pierces as window (cracking it with a hard spike) at 30 m distance and explodes with delay fuse and frag effect in the room. It could defeat a BMP in street combat or in woodland combat, though.
5. A dedicated anti-MBT munition, it's very heavy at about 15 kg, only to be issued (and taken out of vehicles) more than one per section when the need is anticipated. It's necessary because the FOGM would not cover some close terrain such as woodland. RPG-28 has 125 mm tandem HEAT and RPG-30 features a 2nd decoy projectile to trigger hard kill APS so it misses the main shot.
6. Main anti-AFV asset, primarily meant for indirect support fires and launch based on 'bird's view' leads. It could also defeat moving targets and targets that are shielded from 155 mm fire by buildings. I choose fibreoptic guidance because I distrust the radio link of loitering munitions; effective jamming against them may appear any day.
7. Gets rid of BMP-class vehicles at a distance, keeps helos away, may intercept some drones, threatens high subsonic speed combat aircraft during their approach and thus keeps them above ~15,000 ft.
8. Installed on APCs and 8x8. Distributed anti-drone and anti-loitering munition weapon, provides security against infiltrators and stragglers, hardly relevant for infantry fire support. MG3 was chosen for NATO standard calibre and its nowadays uniquely high rate of fire from a single barrel. The bolt could be lightened to increase the RoF even more. The calibre also offers little vibration, small weight and compactness. The bullet type should ignite non-insensitive warheads.
9. Standard NATO calibre. Other calibres and barrel lengths could do the trick as well, of course. Targets mostly based on 'bird's view' operator calls for fires, pre-planned assault support fires (neutralising fires with HE, flank screening with multispectral smoke), calls for HE salvo on a point by infantry platoons and rarely on satellite-identified targets hidden from 'bird's view' sensors. It might also deliver old-fashioned propaganda leaflet munitions.
10. Expensive anti-platform missiles such as SL-AMRAAM, VL MICA, CAMM and IRIS-T SL are not included because I assume good air power support. The same reasoning excluded GUMLRS-class PGMs from the list. What's needed instead is thus a low cost interceptor missile against drones, loitering munitions and occasionally passing cruise missiles, glide bombs and GUMLRS-class PGMs.
Radar support:
Especially #10 requires radar support. A 4x4-based radar could do the air surveillance for aircraft/munitions/drones including warning by radio of impacts about to happen. It would greatly help #7 to take on head-on and #6 to engage helicopters. #8 would also receive threat leads.
The Tamir missile launcher vehicle could use another radar and possibly some gimballed sensor package to guide the missile to its target. Both radars should be GaN AESA radars, single antenna rotating in a rotation-symmetric housing with bulletproof backing.
Examples for small battlefield radars are here: www.iai.co.il/defense/land/land-defense-systems
Vehicles:
compact 4x4 car (~Land Rover or G-Wagon, cabin proofed vs. PKM ball or steel core bullets @ 100 m, front axle well forward of driver and bottom plate as features for protection from mines and UXO, soft roof)
8x8 or 10x10 vehicle of 15...20 tons payload, only three versions in a brigade; advanced load handling (container & pallet), protected tanker (15,000+ litres) and recovery, protected cab with RCWS
www.military-today.com/trucks/oshkosh_lvsr.htm
www.military-today.com/trucks/man_hx3.htm
APC (continuous bandtracks, RCWS, armour against hypothetical 14.5 mm APDS, ROSY smoke including overhead smoke projection, forward powerpack, rear ramp, a couple of available add-on kits such as a dozer blade and recovery winch, ten dismounts on folding seats, crew of driver & gunner, a lightweight anti-HEAT 360°x90° hard kill APS (Iron Fist IFLD, but with two rotating rotation-symmetric radar antennas instead of four fixed ones). Might be used for scouting with at most two dismounts, but 95% of missions would be transportation or assault&run. Weight fuelled without payload; approx. 20 30 tons.
S O
P.S.: This was a minimum list, not an optimum list. Just a thought exercise. Maybe I should have made it much easier on the eye with graphics & a layout that's not stuck in the 90's, but I'm rather busy in private life.
*: Technically that's a munition, not a weapon.
edit: I should have mentioned WHY a minimum set of equipment is attractive, despite not being an optimal one. Our procurement bureaucracies are FUBAR. The more diverse the equipment they need to procure, the lesser the chance that they get the job done. Ruthless standardisation and reduction of variety would not just ease training and logistics; it would also be a workaround for FUBAR procurement.
.
A couple of thoughts:
ReplyDelete- Assuming air support means reliance on a very expensive combat branch. Better IMO to beef up your air defence and minimise the number of jets
- Using the BMP as your opponent in a modern war is no longer realistic. The worlds (ancient) fleet of BMPs is currently being turned into ash in Ukraine and will need to be replaced.
- I think you need at least some "offensive" weapons in there. Even if your doctrine is 100% defensive with no plans to reconquer captured territory, you still need a QRF/reserve.
- An anti drone RCWS is a must, but needs to shoot at an orlan-10 as well as a quadcopter. I think you will need more than 7.62 for that. I think potential for a RCWS with AI targeting to shoot down slow moving Javelin-type missiles needs investigation too.
- No mortars??
- No discussion of communications/EW??
- This one wasn't about optimising. I took the status quo environment, and that includes a huge array of legacy air power in NATO.
Delete- BMPs may be replaced by better-protected vehicles, but that would not really change the set. There are enough anti-MBT tools in the list and the rifle grenade is a modest alternative to 40 mm GLs. I believe that GLs are an idea that looks fine in peacetime, but it has too many issues in wartime.
- "offensive" weapons such as MBTs don't overrun hostiles any more. They move to contact, then shoot them up. To keep advancing only exposes the sides more and degrades the own firepower despite stabilisation. This equipment set would see a move to contact, then indirect fires (155 mm, FOGM) rather than direct fires. Assaults would be done with infantry in APCs, protected by neutralising and mutispectral smoke fires from 155 mm.
Some drones can and will fly too high for even a 30x113 mm. That's no problem, Tamir is in the list. A bigger weapon than .50BMG would gain little against drones or soldiers on foot, but become much more expensive (sensors corresponding to weapon range + x%), heavy, bulky. Fine for a MBT turret, not fine on APC or 8x8 IMO. Nobody shall be tempted to misuse the APC as an IFV.
BTW, IIRC Javelin is supersonic, as is Khrizanthema. That's not really slow.
- No mortars because accurate 155 mm does the trick in a minimum scenario. Illumination could be done by drones with LED lights better than by 60...120 mm ILLUM.
- comms/EW; I already mission crept from weapons to radars and vehicles, I stopped at that point.
EW in brigade should be RF PROX fuse jamming (if effective) and ELINT, all else isn't a necessity. Comms; frankly, not my strong point. I cannot tell which legacy radio comms are vulnerable enough to require an alternative, for example.
Only EW stuff that I'm fairly certain about is that we should make use of E-LORAN as backup for GPS/Galileo.
Javelin and spike travel at about 150m/s as far as I know. Assuming the missile is identified fairly early (hopefully by its launch signature) and you are using a small calibre weapon (7.62-12.7mm) engagement time might be about 1-2 seconds. That doesn't sound a lot but a fast firing weapon could get 15-40 rounds off in that time against a missile that is not manoeuvring. It is no CWIS but a 50% (say) chance of shooting the missile down is a great way to use a system you have mounted anyway.
DeleteAn alternative is to increase the calibre to 20mm, where you can get longer range and an airburst capability - this would sweep most cheap drones out of the sky (or keep them at a considerable distance so making them able to track you) and be much more effective against missiles, with the added bonus of real punch against infantry in cover, tank optics etc. (but then it would be creeping into IFV territory!)
I think mortars should not be left out because they are very cheap and offer more organic fires to the infantry which is super useful.
Videographic evidence with known distances suggested much higher speed, and the top attack profile certainly has a much higher terminal velocity than average speed.
Delete20 mm doesn't really add significant airburst capability. 20 and 25 mm calibres were tested by Americans for AB, but found to be disappointing.
You may shoot at incoming ATGMs, but I suppose that would rarely matter. The dedicated interceptor munition will more often do the intercept.
About mortars; this is a minimum list. Yes, they are cheap, but a 81 or 120 mm mortar's survivability in face of sound ranging and artillery radars is questionable. They're not so cheap and attractive any more once you need to shoot & scoot all the time within a few km of the target.
Will the ALAS-missiles be prone to interception by enemy AA guns or RCWS accompanying tanks?
ReplyDeleteHard kill APS could stop it. I'd revert to my long-time insistence that we need something like CKEM, but for the 2020's it seems safe to assume that the threat in Europe could not cope with something like RALAS or EuroSpike.
DeleteThere aren't terribly many SPAAGs or air defence-worthy RCWS among potential opposing forces now or in the near future, either.
BTW, the RALAS-ish missiles in the list wouldn't just be for knocking out MBTs. They would also engage mortar teams, helicopters and many kinds of ground vehicles including soft ones. I think of RALAS as a ATGM/loitering munition crossover.
BTW, I don't know whether the ALAS family is any good. It's a representative example for the concept.
My understanding from your past posts was that only a small supply of high end MBTs for counter-attacks would have APS, and that APCs would rely on multi-spectral smoke cover to maneuver?
ReplyDeleteAn APS could easily almost double the cost of a simple boxy APC, effectively purchasing a new set for every 10 people you intend to transport. Despite all it's drawbacks, ERA is at least (theoretically) cheap.
Iron Fist costs les than 1 million USD.
Deletehttps://insidedefense.com/insider/army-award-imi-gd-122m-iron-fist-aps
Such an APC without APS would likely cost 3...6 million USD if produced in a good quantity at a high annual rate.
ERA does not help against overflight or dive attack munitions. The Russians possess at semi-active laser guidance tech, which they can use for a dive attack ATGM on the quick. They already possess loitering munitions, which do dive attacks.
An assault could be supported by neutralising 155 mm HE fires on the objective and multispectral smoke on the flanks, but many everyday activities such as ferrying munitions/personnel replacements/personnel evacuations/POWs/WIA/KIA/water/food/tools/construction materials not. You can't smoke 2x1 km screens for single APC run all the time.
And let's face it; we won't resist the enticing promise of hard kill APS in the 2020's any more. It was surprising how well NATO resisted it in the 90's.
Last but not least, I cannot guarantee 100% consistency. My opinion is not all petrified and details may differ depending on scenario and angle of observation on a topic.
Poland has declared their ambition to become the biggest Central European power with 300k soldiers, over 1k tanks and so forth. Much of their equipment is going to be Korean made. Could you look into the Polish build up and the Korean gear? It would show great mismanagement in Germany if Poland outperforms us with half the budget.
ReplyDeleteIf we consider a possible break up of the alliance between Europe and the US in the future, this Polish army wouldn't be just our allied defence against Russia, but a possible direct threat. How likely is it that the relationship with the US goes sour and Poland ends up in a different camp than Germany?
They're building Potemkin villages with those arms purchase programs unless they ramp up the training, including regarding branch-qualified officers.
DeleteI have absolutely no sources or means to discover whether they get the personnel and the operations budget sides of their build-up right.
"Poland has declared their ambition to become the biggest Central European power with 300k soldiers, over 1k tanks and so forth."
ReplyDeleteThey have 650 tanks in active units and replace their 400 T-72 and T-72 derivatives with Korean K2 and US Abrams.
They plan to produce a heavy version of the K2, for which the proto type still does not exist. Look at Turkey's Altai what could happen....
"They have 650 tanks in active units"
DeleteAnd what is the training budget for these?
A large inventory doesn't mean much. Their defence spending for 2023 will be less than 40% of German defence spending.
Your APC concept is very good, but maybe a bit heavy. The focus should be on creating a very cheap base platform with good range and mobility, 2 man crew with good carrying capacity. Design with the ability to increase protection with added armor and APS. Amphibious capability is also a positive.
ReplyDeleteCheap is important! Mass is back. The ability of infantry and artillery to force tanks to a stand-off distance with even limited infantry concentrations has been demonstrated in Ukraine. Sexy expensive tank systems are less important than lots of artillery, solid air defense(esp anti-drone), and the ability to deploy infantry screens and mop up opposing infantry screens after artillery fires. The Ukrainians have been using even BMP's and M113’s quite effectively as battle taxis to protect from indirect artillery fires as they support their infantry positions. These have proven very difficult to crack even with superior Russian artillery and concentrations of infantry with tank support.
The APC would need to be able to double as scout in mobile warfare phases as there's no scout vehicle in the list. It would also serve as an assault transport for infantry, so it would face quite an ATGM threat. That drives costs up beyond a mere aluminium alloy box with spall liners.
DeleteEven a mass-produced RCWS costs six figures these days.
Weight would be reduced much by reducing the ballistic protection from 14.5 mm APDS to 14.5 mm AP (B-32) or by cutting many nice details (ergonomics, durability et cetera).
I was careful by correcting from 20 to 30 tons, I based that correction on the CV90 Armadillo.
http://www.military-today.com/apc/cv90_armadillo.htm
20 tons was an estimate based on extrapolating from Israeli up-armoured M113s (Zelda 2 / Classical).
Sven, you mentioned four Israeli systems in a very short list. I understand you Germans are always guilt tripped because of Holocaust, but please in the future consider the facts that Israelis have not contributed a single penny to Ukraine, and have supplied and continue to supply an Islamic dictatorship (Azerbayjan) against a Christian democracy (Armenia).
ReplyDeleteI'm guilt-tripped only about my laziness.
DeleteTamir is without alternative. Only RBS-23 comes close, but is likely much more expensive (the same company's Bolide missile is shockingly expensive) and it's unproven. Tamir hits non-manoeuvring targets 85% of the time.
Tamir missile prices per copy are rumoured from 48k to 180k USD and appear to be in the 48k...62k USD range (2021 prices).
Iron Fist is runner-up to Trophy in regard to hard kill APS. Iron Fist is less demanding, and its light version appears sufficient to defeat ATGMs.
More promising systems such as the German AMAP-ADS (or whatever it's called these days) keep not selling, which makes them relatively untrustworthy.
ATMOS 2000 is costs less than Caesar or even Caesar 2 and does the same. Archer is more intricated, AGM even more so.
Have you seen what Gazans shoot at Israel when they need attention? It's literally homemade katyusha. Shitty propellant. Flimsy body. No guidance. No maneuvering. Shooting these down with 48k$ missiles is not an advertisement. It's an embarrasement. At least RBS-70 has an HEDP warhead, you could kill anything but tanks in a 20km radius. Good alternatives? MHTK missile, or anything based on 35mm KDG.
DeleteERA and APS are meme systems that only Russia and Israel insist on using. Blazer, Trophy, Afghanit, Malakit, lmfao. Lethal to infantry and civilians, and easily defeated by RPG-30.
ATMOS 2000 is the lowest possible bar in 155mm howitzers. No ludicrous rate of fire like Bkan1C. No ridiculous magazine like PzH2000. No MRSI. No wonder it's so popular with subsaharan african customers. Since you kept 7.62 and SR/DMR away from your infantry, I assume you would be ok with downgrading to 105mm. Look up AM General's Hawkeye. Denel's 105mm PFF shells are more lethal than classic 155mm, too.
Speaking of infantry, 5.56 kindergarten toys are too weak for rifle grenades. If I had a G3 or FAL, of course I would pick a Super Energa. But for M4, you NEED M203.
The French are using 40 mm HEDP rifle grenades with FAMAS. It works, the trajectory is just not as good as with 7.62NATO.
DeleteTamir is essential against cruise missiles, glide bombs.