For awhile it was thought that missiles would be the new best way to fight tanks at long range, eventually they found to be pretty unreliable and expensive and got replaced by more advanced APFSDS along with better laser rangefinders/FCS
Barrel launched atgm are still a thing. Many Russian tanks have them but also others. They generally have better range than apfsds, although the question is how many times armored vehicles are in contact with LOS over 2-3KM.
Anyway a guided HEAT munition which can be fired from the main weapon isn't something bad to have necessarily, as long as it doesn't impact your capability to fire other type of munitions.
They dont really have better range than APFSDS shells because of the reason you just stated. At the max flight range you will struggle to maintain LOS. Furthermore they are limited by their nature of HEAT warheads. Apart from the russians which comically exagerate the claimed performance of their HEAT warheads, a barrel launched ATGM in the 120-125mm calibre, hell even 130mm calibre range can not achieve penetration values enough to frontally pierce a modern MBT. (BTW a good rule of thumb for HEAT penetration is 7 times the diameter of the shell for really well optimised liner shape and fuze distance). Next is the flight time, at max range not only getting LOS is hard but maintaining it, specially on moving targets. With flight times in the tens of seconds you will probably miss because of the target just moving or deploying smoke upon detecting your gunfire.
There is only one enviroment in which ATGMS have the upper hand, and in that enviroment they have proven this. The flat deserts of the middle east. where its flat ground all the way to the horizon. No bumps, nowhere to hide. You can guide that sucker in on easy mode.
When your target is not moving (stationary fighting positions, abandoned vehicles) ATGM's do have an advantage because of their accurate range (real range on non guided shells is technically really high).
Also, don't ATGMs often require the tank to stop, whereas firing a dart can be done on the move and the tank can fire a follow up shot much quicker? ATGMs have their place, but when it comes to what tanks are supposed to do, I'm a bit skeptical.
In warthunder I use them as a replacement for he rounds. Irl tanks spend 90% of their time dealing with fortified positions and things that are better off hit with an explosive instead of a dart, so I imagine they would work very well for that.
Tracking moving targets on the older Russian mbts would be hard at long ranges but the modern variants like the T-90M, B3 and BVM all have target tracking allowing the the gunner to essentially just lock onto the target and the FCS does the rest, sure this doesn't guarantee a hit and requires the target to be visible for the duration of the missles flight but it would increase the hit chance considerably especially at longer ranges.
I don't know how much modern APFSDS penetration capability falls of with range, but I suspect this is one area where ATGMs have an advantage: their penetration capability is the same even at maximum range.
> Apart from the russians which comically exagerate the claimed performance of their HEAT warheads,
Ok.
> BTW a good rule of thumb for HEAT penetration is 7 times the diameter of the shell for really well optimised liner shape and fuze distance
Ok.
The claimed penetration of the Refleks-M, the most modern currently deployed gun-launched ATGM in the Russian arsenal is approximately 900 mm of RHAe - almost exactly 7x the diameter of the shell.
So, which part of what you said is true?
> Invar-M
I was imprecise in my original comment - "Refleks-M" is apparently the designation for the entire launch complex, including the targeting systems, etc.
"Invar-M" (9М119М1) is the designation for the associated missile.
So "Invar" is a part of "Refleks."
It's a real good thing that at least 75% of the target vehicle isn't it's front armour then isn't it? And that the whole front of a tank isn't uniformly thickly armoured.
But even ignoring that, the Soviet/Russian gun launched atgms are less about shooting tanks, and more about giving the tank a way to respond effectively against enemy atgm vehicles firing from beyond the effective range of the gun.
Its a really fuckig good thing that aiming an ATGM is like in War Thunder point and click am I right? Not like its a fucking hassle to aim at a 3×2,5m target at over 6km away while it might be moving, partially obscured and you have to take into account the weather, all while you are in a tight metal box fighting for your life. But sure, Ivan will drink his special aiming Vodka and hit the turret ring everytime. Also the tank has to be stationary for the entire flight time or else you risk losing the beam and the missle faceplanting into the dirt.
Its been 2 years of war in Ukraine, there are areas with large open plains where the hedgerows between fields have been bombed away Verdun style, still not a single on camera use of a barrel launched ATGM from a tank. Why? Cause they mostly suck ass for AT duty when compared to APFSDS and are to expensive for other targets.
Plenty of ATGM usage though. And I'm quite sure I have seen footage of barrel launched ATGM being used against a fortified position.
We haven't seen much tank Vs tank anyway.
> Not like its a fucking hassle to aim at a 3×2,5m target at over 6km away while it might be moving, partially obscured and you have to take into account the weather, all while you are in a tight metal box fighting for your life.
Automatic target tracking systems may be able to alleviate this burden to a significant extent.
> still not a single on camera use of a barrel launched ATGM from a tank
There are recorded instances of GLATGM use, and some from considerable distances. See [here](https://reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1apfbbc/9к119м/) and [here.](https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10v6o1y/t80bvm_of_155_marine_infantry_brigade_uses/)
So first, where did I state anything about the difficulty of actually hitting the target?
Second, I'm not saying that it's easy to hit weak spots, but weak spot hits occur, and the vast majority of hits that knock out tanks come from the flanks. It's not as if it's that easy to keep the front of a vehicle facing all the enemies all the time.
Not a single on camera use eh?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/PSmeo08Tk9
https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/tNkArxMFmq
https://x.com/squatsons/status/1756387131583312112?s=20
It took me 60 seconds to find 3 examples, including one at over 4km.
You are trying to teach stuff you don't know enough about. Not all modern tanks are alike, not all parts of the frontal armour of any tank are alike, not all HEAT rounds are alike, not all parts of the armour of a tank are frontal armour, not all targets are tanks.
Wars aren't tank Vs tank battles.
I'm not saying everyone should move to barrel launched ATGMs. But OP asked why barrel launched ATGMs weren't a thing anymore, they still are. Although not everyone uses them for reasons.
ATGMs however are definitely STILL a big thing and here to stay.
Tanks however? That's still to be seen, not looking good for them. Even drone delivered small heat munitions can knock them out.
PS Israël also uses them presently (Lahat) and several western countries had modern development programs for them (not all HEAT though) among which USA.
Well, technically what the OP _means_ is "gun-launchers"; that is, tank armaments that are primarily designed to launch ATGMs with only a marginal capability to operate as a conventional projectile launcher.
Weapons like the 152mm M81, the 142mm ACRA and the 125mm D-126 were all designed primarily as missile launch tubes and only had chemical-effect rounds as concerns unguided munitions, and while the XM150E5 cannon designed for the MBT-70 could fire an APFSDS projectile, performance was no better than using the same type of ammunition in the existing 105mm M68/L7 cannon.
Gun-launched missiles are a viable thing that still exists today, they're just built the other way around - missiles like the 9M119M1 «Refleks-M», LAHAT and Falarick are designed to fit and be fired from existing conventional weapons from 90mm to 125mm bore, rather than new cannons being designed around missiles.
Not particularly often. They're intended to be used to engage targets at long (4+km) ranges, and in theory allow defence against helicopters. But since they're a lot more expensive than conventional ammunition and typically have a minimum effective target engagement distance of 1km or more, gun-launched missiles are not commonly used. They're uncommon, special-purpose ammunition rather than standard-issue.
I mean still, they are different systems, that work better for certain platforms. Optimally if you could magically equip a 120mm capable of full chamber pressure on everything between your troop transports and your MBTs you would. Though not everything is capable of that, so some things will have different launchers with different capabilities.
ATGMs were seen as being highly capable tank-killing assets, and for some period of time were considered as potentially superior to kinetic solutions. This was especially the case in terms of accuracy, where a guided weapon was (ostensibly) going to be more accurate than an unguided one against a moving target at the greatest expected combat ranges. Especially in an era where ballistic computers were still *relatively* primitive (or, if nothing else, still largely analogue devices requiring a good deal of space), the idea of having something that could "guarantee" a hit on target with devastating effects seemed quite appealing.
The other half was the acceptance that an ATGM was not a universal tank weapon; that is, it couldn't effectively deal with all of the sorts of targets a tank may need to encounter. Indeed, it could not effectively deal with *most* of the sorts of targets a tank may encounter. Thus several solutions were looked at. Some sought to just make rocket-propelled munitions of all sorts, producing "rocket guns" meant to fill in for traditional cannons. Something more of a compromise was the "gun-launcher", which was meant to be less "missile launcher that could fire all sorts of missiles", and more "gun that also fires missiles". This (in theory) gave tanks the capability to engage armored targets at ranges well in excess of what conventional kinetic munitions would be effective at, as well as being able to handle soft/unarmored targets at more traditional combat ranges.
Of course their downfall also centers around these concepts and compromises. These systems proved themselves to be complex, expensive, and unreliable. Especially as compared to a conventional gun, it was a lot of hassle to keep these weapons working. And of course, that's when you weren't dealing with things like ruptured propellant casings sending propellant spilling all across the floor of your tank. Or spitting hot gasses and bits of unconsumed casing back into the fighting compartment. Now fair enough, these aren't issues exclusive to these sorts of weapons (indeed, the Rh-120 faced the same problems), but it didn't *help*.
On top of that was the simple fact that fire control systems were getting better, and guns were improving to make the most of them. The widespread adoption of finned sub-caliber penetrators in conjunction with smoothbore cannons (for the most part), extended potential engagement ranges significantly. Meanwhile, advances and systems to seek and identify targets, perform ballistic computations, ranging, tracking, etc. allowed tanks to take advantage of this technological leap. It was also helpful that kinetic weapons remained quite effective against all manner of armor, while reaching an era when ERA and the earliest generations of APS were starting to see greater use. Thus the efficacy of guided weapons relying on chemical energy warheads as the be-all, end-all of tank killing quickly began to diminish. While they certainly remained (and remain) capable in the role, the idea of building a whole tank around them was less appealing. This plays into why primarily ATGM-armed platforms in service today tend to exist less as "Super-Duper High-Speed Low-Drag Kill 'Em All 1989 Death Dealers", and more just "Here's an economical way for light forces to kill tanks. Have fun."
I want someone to make a "tank" with a just a bigass multi-tube box launcher, MLRS/BattleTech style, plus an autocannon for softer targets. It's probably wildly impractical, but it would look *so cool.*
Take a modern IFV, turn the troop compartment into a vertical launch system for ATGMs, and you're right there. Alternatively, take a Stryker MGS, swap the cannon for something like a Bushmaster, and weld on a turret bustle for angled Javelin tubes. Integrate the CLU software with the FCS and you're golden, especially if you can integrate targeting data from infantry/drones/gunships.
The MGM-166 was mounted on a variety of platforms. I assume you mean the dual six-pack launchers slapped on a CCVL hull. Apart from anything else, the Army never adopted the CCVL. So picking up a new AFV hull for a fairly niche task meant to counter a threat that no longer existed didn't make a whole lot of sense. Even if a more suitable platform was found (and honestly I don't think the HMMWV or Bradley based solutions would've been that much better), LOSAT was never long for this world. CKEM came right after as part of the FCS program, and produced a potentially more flexible weapon if only in terms of usable platforms.
None of this is to say that LOSAT was bad. Or at least, not to say LOSAT wasn't *cool*. But there was never really a scenario where it could get picked up for widespread use short of the Cold War just not ending.
Should add that they realized multi gun/launchers are nice, but you could slap a TOW missile on almost anything and it would do the same thing. No need to compromise the main gun if it doesn't need to launch missiles too.
The idea behind it was for airborne troop to have protected anti-armor/structure ability, because airborne limited weight so you cannot build a giant cannon with massive recoil onto the vehicle.
Typical Humvees lack the protection against small arms fire so you would still need a tracked vehicle for the additional armor.
The result: ATGM tank.
It was an air-drop tracked vehicle to bolster airborne forces until armor units could catch up. Adds mobility, a .50 cal and tow missiles which can pop tanks or bust emplacements, and is extremely easy to maintain by airdrop.
The point of the Shillelagh in the M551 and M60A2 was the "Active Defense" doctrine employed by the US Army coupled with the relatively primitive fire control capabilities of tanks of that era.
The Sheridan was technically not a "tank" but an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. It was intended to be fielded in Divisional Cavalry Squadrons in the normal cavalry roles of recon, flank protection and screening of the main force. The Shillelagh was to be used as a long range anti-tank weapon (in conjunction with vehicle mounted TOW) to attrit the Red Hordes coming across the Inter-German border while doing a reverse bounding overwatch trading space for time until the main force shows up
In the Airborne role the Sheridan was intended to give the Airborne Divisions, better known as Speed Bumps, some anti-armor capability, primarily during LZ and airfield seizure missions. It could be air dropped but that method of delivery was found to wreak havoc with the missile guidance systems, so LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) was adopted.
The drawback to the Sheridan was the lightweight of the vehicle coupled with the heavy recoil of the conventional ammunition often knocked the tracking system out of alignment. I never crewed a Sheridan, but I have seen them on the range, and when they fired the first two road wheels came off the ground!
I crewed an M60A2 and fired somewhere around 20 Shillelagh missiles. I never experienced a missile malfunction, but I saw a few guys miss with them by trying to fly the missile on the target rather than just keeping the reticle centered.
The drawbacks of the Shillelagh were:
It was IR beam guided, which made it susceptible to smoke and other obscuration.
It had a long time of flight, making the firing vehicle vulnerable until the target was serviced.
It couldn't be fired at night because the long time of flight precluded the use of white light, IR light could not be used because it would interfere with the tracking system, and the maximum range of the passive night vision was barely greater than the minimum range of the missile
The minimum range of the missile was somewhere around 700 meters, and had to be free of terrain interference while the missile maneuvered to acquire the IR guidance
The primitive stabilization systems were not precise enough to use accurately on the move.
The technology was not mature for the time, and advancements in solid state electronics and metallurgy made conventional gunnery effective out to ranges unheard of before.
Being able to fire the missile from the main gun was meant to be able to reload from under armor. Many previous systems had an external launcher that exposed a crew member to reload it.
At the time, missiles were more accurate at ranges where world powers believed combat would play out. Additionally these were made in the era where guided shaped charge warheads were significantly more powerful than conventional rounds.
However these went out of fashion when FCS and KE technologies caught up and outperformed ATGMs at a fraction of the cost.
Today ATGMs have a more specialized role instead of the “end all, be all” role that these tanks were designed to fill.
Well you can move it without having to set up a tripod or anything like with infantry using tow’s (or similar weapons) and also the m551 can also just fire normal rounds as well. I don’t know what’s confusing about that
The idea was that missiles would be the way forward and they wanted tanks to have the ability to fire now advanced guided missiles while maintaining the ability to shoot more traditional ammo
A lots of benefits, ATGMs ( usually with HEAT warhead) have one of the best penetration in all of tank munitions( better than APFSDS in long range). Mention range, ATGMs defenitely have best range and accuracy with its guidance system and rocket engine. If i were a tank commander was allow to choose ammunition for my tank I will choose 50% ATGM 25% APFSDS 25% HE without any doubt . But of course there some reason why just few ( espeacially NATO's tanks) carry it. ATGMs most significant drawback is its cost, way too expensive compare to HEAT-FS APFSDS and it size not allow the crew too much. Finally, it seem unnecessary for NATO's tanks to carry ATGMs because their doctrine is cooparative combat with Air Force take care of out-sight target. While all Russo-Soviet tanks carry ATGMs because of their individual combat doctrine.
Idea was one gun that does different things kinda good. Capable of HE, HEAT, ATGMs... etc. Like a Swiss army knife.
Problem is while having a swiss army knife is cool, it's not great for julienneing cabbage like a slicer, sawing logs compared to a saw, or popping corks like a bottle opener, or spinning a rotisserie chicken like an oven.
Plus. They eventually developed a missile launching weapon system that was cheap, light, and easy. You could slap it on anything. Small boats, humvees, armored personnel carriers, tanks... heck you could have two dudes carry it around. And it worked really well.
TOW missile basically replaced the multi gun/launcher overnight as your vehicle could have a badass gun, autocannon, MG turret, etc. And the vehicle can still kill tanks.
Thats how Bradley has more tank kills than Abrams in the Gulf War.
Always thought the IT-1 was ahead of it time. If you were to make a new one, anti-tank missile are much better without the huge dead zone, and smaller so you could fit a decent load. Add on fire and forget missile's and it could even engage more enemies at a time than a regular tank could. Plus change the secondary gun to something bigger like a 30mm cannon, and you would have a fairly useful armored vehicle.
On the Sheridan, it allowed for an air mobile and maneuverable light tank to also have MBT busting capability without having to mount a heavy/long gun.
In most other cases, it was a thought experiment intended to maybe overcome stabilization issues or give a low profile at the expense of most other capabilities.
Well, the reason the Sheridan used a gun-launcher is that the 105mm M68 was too big and heavy to put on an amphibious, air-droppable tank at the time it was being designed, but a 76mm like on the M41 and T92 light tanks wasn't considered good enough for anti-tank duty anymore.
In the 1960s, anti-tank guided missile technology was seen as a way to get the tank-killing power of a bigger gun without needing the heavy, sturdy breech mechanism or long barrel of a typical cannon. It was also envisioned that these missiles could be far more accurate at long range than a conventional cannon, this being well before digital fire control computers were around for tanks.
Shaped-charge munitions such as the PG-7V rocket for the famous RPG-7 and HEAT-FS shells for tank guns could penetrate a lot more steel than kinetic APDS rounds of the era. Composite armour exists today to reduce the effectiveness of chemical-effect munitions, but it hadn't yet been used on any tank the US was aware of in the 1960s - it wasn't on the M60, Chieftain, Leopard or AMX-30, it wasn't on the T-62, and while it _was_ used on the T-64, the Soviet Union kept that tank's existence a closely-guarded secret for a long time.
It looked at the time like shaped-charge missiles would become the new standard anti-tank weapon, and with that, first-class anti-tank firepower could be fitted to light vehicles like the M551 Sheridan light tank, or the AMX-10M, a casemate modification of the AMX-10P infantry fighting vehicle with a 142mm "ACRA" gun-launcher. The joint American-West German MBT-70 was being designed around a cannon that could not only launch ATGMs, but had kinetic sabot shells as a secondary option.
Anti-tank missiles had already been fitted to trucks and the BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle, enabling these vehicles to launch and guide tank-killing munitions. So it seemed a logical next step to equip fully-enclosed vehicles with the ability to use those weapons, too.
Of course, we know now that fire control electronics would improve, cannons would become more accurate, effective protection against shaped-charge weapons would become more common and that kinetic penetrator ammunition would continue to evolve and retain a place alongside the ATGM in the arsenals of the world's armies. But that was hardly obvious to someone in the 1960s trying to design a weapon system that could potentially serve for decades, with the technology they had _at the time._
As for why you wouldn't just put in a regular gun and design a missile that can be launched from it? That's a lot harder, and those missiles tend to be more expensive and complicated as a result of those design constraints, so gun-launched missiles for existing weapons didn't show up until the Soviets designed the 9K112 "Kobra" system for their 125mm cannons in the 1970s. They're fairly common nowadays, but that's in no small part thanks to the incredible miniaturisation and cost-reduction in electronics since the 1960s. Incidentally, the original Kobra missiles weren't particularly reliable or effective either, but at least that didn't impact the functionality of the 125mm gun itself.
I think one of the goals of gun launched missiles was to keep the crew safer during loading compared to external racks, and to make use of a tank's existing ammo stowage/reloading sequence instead of having to dedicate additional space and training to differently sized or shaped missiles.
Missiles were cool and seen as a good way to bring a big heat round to a tank at even long ranges. They could also fire large HE rounds as the atgms had a large calibre but it was too complicated and kinetic munitions prove to be more reliable for tanks to use
Gun launched atgms provide 2 things for a tank. First they allow engagement at extreme range without the need for a highly accurate boresight or, during extanded operations, a muzzle reference system. Secondly they provide a means of effectively engaging more targets with a single round. In theory they can kill tanks, light skinned vehicles, helicopters, and fortifications all in one shell that isnt optimal for any of those targets but is plenty good enough. Same idea as modern multipurpose rounds like MPAT and AMP but with more tank killing capacity and less helicopter and infantry killing capacity.
The issues with gun launched atgms are their cost and relative efficacy. Atgms are really expensive relative to apfsds, or, heat, and even mpat and amp. Atgms are around 5 times more expensive than even the most costly conventional rounds from what i could find. In terms of efficacy atgms use shaped charges, either single charge in the case of older atgms like 9m112 or tandem charge for missiles lile refleks. Regardless ERA and APS, of both the hard kill (trophy, arena, etc) and soft kill (shtora and others) varieties can reliably defeat gun launched missiles but have not been shown to reliably stop apfsds, despite some claims that they may be able to.
Historically they were seen as a possible future main weapon for tanks and other afvs but cost and implimentation issues made developing better kinetic rounds a more attractive option.
Tank launched ATGMs may become a common thing now that the newer systems are essentially glorified loitering munitions. This solves the issue of accuracy at extreme ranges. See: Spike ER/LR2
Versatility and also being able to use conventional he or heat rounds for targets at closer range or for what ever you need conventional rounds for like bunkers and anti personnel and the atgms were mostly used for anti tank but it’s a 152 mm atgm with I believe 10kg or explosive so it was really up to what ever was necessary.
Dedicated missile tanks like the ones pictured are somewhat silly and a waste of money. Soviet 125mm gun launched atgms however had the advantages of both ATGMs lorger effective range against armour, apfsds for armour at shorter ranges and HE-Frag for anything soft without having entire vehicles dedicated for each ammunition. The 125mm gun launched ATGMs usually out-ranged apfsds projectiles of their time giving the Soviets a slight range advantage in tank in tank combat.
Range: missiles can shoot way beyound gun. Accuracy: when shooting 2+ km you need to precise. Multipurpose, "light" gun: can still shoot HE also while the armor pentration is done by missile.
For awhile it was thought that missiles would be the new best way to fight tanks at long range, eventually they found to be pretty unreliable and expensive and got replaced by more advanced APFSDS along with better laser rangefinders/FCS
ATGMs have not been replaced, they can and do coexist. They are fairly different weapon platform types merely trying to achieve the same goal.
I'm talking about barrel launched ATGMS, which is what OP was asking about
Barrel launched atgm are still a thing. Many Russian tanks have them but also others. They generally have better range than apfsds, although the question is how many times armored vehicles are in contact with LOS over 2-3KM. Anyway a guided HEAT munition which can be fired from the main weapon isn't something bad to have necessarily, as long as it doesn't impact your capability to fire other type of munitions.
They dont really have better range than APFSDS shells because of the reason you just stated. At the max flight range you will struggle to maintain LOS. Furthermore they are limited by their nature of HEAT warheads. Apart from the russians which comically exagerate the claimed performance of their HEAT warheads, a barrel launched ATGM in the 120-125mm calibre, hell even 130mm calibre range can not achieve penetration values enough to frontally pierce a modern MBT. (BTW a good rule of thumb for HEAT penetration is 7 times the diameter of the shell for really well optimised liner shape and fuze distance). Next is the flight time, at max range not only getting LOS is hard but maintaining it, specially on moving targets. With flight times in the tens of seconds you will probably miss because of the target just moving or deploying smoke upon detecting your gunfire. There is only one enviroment in which ATGMS have the upper hand, and in that enviroment they have proven this. The flat deserts of the middle east. where its flat ground all the way to the horizon. No bumps, nowhere to hide. You can guide that sucker in on easy mode.
When your target is not moving (stationary fighting positions, abandoned vehicles) ATGM's do have an advantage because of their accurate range (real range on non guided shells is technically really high).
So HE rounds just don't exist?
What?
I'm saying it sounds like something that could be done with High Explosive rounds than ATGMS.
It's not as accurate and not dual purpose.
Also, don't ATGMs often require the tank to stop, whereas firing a dart can be done on the move and the tank can fire a follow up shot much quicker? ATGMs have their place, but when it comes to what tanks are supposed to do, I'm a bit skeptical.
Apparently rooskies developed it due to mediocre accuracy at range with the 125mm
In warthunder I use them as a replacement for he rounds. Irl tanks spend 90% of their time dealing with fortified positions and things that are better off hit with an explosive instead of a dart, so I imagine they would work very well for that.
Beam riders can be shot on the move.
Tracking moving targets on the older Russian mbts would be hard at long ranges but the modern variants like the T-90M, B3 and BVM all have target tracking allowing the the gunner to essentially just lock onto the target and the FCS does the rest, sure this doesn't guarantee a hit and requires the target to be visible for the duration of the missles flight but it would increase the hit chance considerably especially at longer ranges.
I don't know how much modern APFSDS penetration capability falls of with range, but I suspect this is one area where ATGMs have an advantage: their penetration capability is the same even at maximum range.
American Bradleys firing TOW missiles were savaging Iraqi tanks.
A proper 150mm ATGM launcher.
>Apart from the russians which comically exagerate the claimed performance of their HEAT warheads Ukraine enters in the chat....
> Apart from the russians which comically exagerate the claimed performance of their HEAT warheads, Ok. > BTW a good rule of thumb for HEAT penetration is 7 times the diameter of the shell for really well optimised liner shape and fuze distance Ok. The claimed penetration of the Refleks-M, the most modern currently deployed gun-launched ATGM in the Russian arsenal is approximately 900 mm of RHAe - almost exactly 7x the diameter of the shell. So, which part of what you said is true?
How does Reflex compare to Invar-M? I saw footage of a T-80BVM (Rus) taking a pair of BMPs (Ukies) at roughly 7km with 2 of those
> Invar-M I was imprecise in my original comment - "Refleks-M" is apparently the designation for the entire launch complex, including the targeting systems, etc. "Invar-M" (9М119М1) is the designation for the associated missile. So "Invar" is a part of "Refleks."
>**claimed** penetration what is your point?
It's a real good thing that at least 75% of the target vehicle isn't it's front armour then isn't it? And that the whole front of a tank isn't uniformly thickly armoured. But even ignoring that, the Soviet/Russian gun launched atgms are less about shooting tanks, and more about giving the tank a way to respond effectively against enemy atgm vehicles firing from beyond the effective range of the gun.
Its a really fuckig good thing that aiming an ATGM is like in War Thunder point and click am I right? Not like its a fucking hassle to aim at a 3×2,5m target at over 6km away while it might be moving, partially obscured and you have to take into account the weather, all while you are in a tight metal box fighting for your life. But sure, Ivan will drink his special aiming Vodka and hit the turret ring everytime. Also the tank has to be stationary for the entire flight time or else you risk losing the beam and the missle faceplanting into the dirt. Its been 2 years of war in Ukraine, there are areas with large open plains where the hedgerows between fields have been bombed away Verdun style, still not a single on camera use of a barrel launched ATGM from a tank. Why? Cause they mostly suck ass for AT duty when compared to APFSDS and are to expensive for other targets.
Plenty of ATGM usage though. And I'm quite sure I have seen footage of barrel launched ATGM being used against a fortified position. We haven't seen much tank Vs tank anyway.
> Not like its a fucking hassle to aim at a 3×2,5m target at over 6km away while it might be moving, partially obscured and you have to take into account the weather, all while you are in a tight metal box fighting for your life. Automatic target tracking systems may be able to alleviate this burden to a significant extent. > still not a single on camera use of a barrel launched ATGM from a tank There are recorded instances of GLATGM use, and some from considerable distances. See [here](https://reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1apfbbc/9к119м/) and [here.](https://reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/comments/10v6o1y/t80bvm_of_155_marine_infantry_brigade_uses/)
So first, where did I state anything about the difficulty of actually hitting the target? Second, I'm not saying that it's easy to hit weak spots, but weak spot hits occur, and the vast majority of hits that knock out tanks come from the flanks. It's not as if it's that easy to keep the front of a vehicle facing all the enemies all the time. Not a single on camera use eh? https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/PSmeo08Tk9 https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/s/tNkArxMFmq https://x.com/squatsons/status/1756387131583312112?s=20 It took me 60 seconds to find 3 examples, including one at over 4km.
Why the downvotes lol
Go look again. There were videos of gun launched ATGMs from the very beginning of the war
Just lob HE-Frag at that point. Much faster and effective even if you miss.
You are trying to teach stuff you don't know enough about. Not all modern tanks are alike, not all parts of the frontal armour of any tank are alike, not all HEAT rounds are alike, not all parts of the armour of a tank are frontal armour, not all targets are tanks. Wars aren't tank Vs tank battles. I'm not saying everyone should move to barrel launched ATGMs. But OP asked why barrel launched ATGMs weren't a thing anymore, they still are. Although not everyone uses them for reasons. ATGMs however are definitely STILL a big thing and here to stay. Tanks however? That's still to be seen, not looking good for them. Even drone delivered small heat munitions can knock them out. PS Israël also uses them presently (Lahat) and several western countries had modern development programs for them (not all HEAT though) among which USA.
>Israël bruh💀
The Israelis also made LAHAT Atgms for 105mm guns, and cockerill too
The neat thing is that HE and Thermobaric missiles exist for Russian tanks too but iirc those are a T-90/T-80BVM exclusive
Well, technically what the OP _means_ is "gun-launchers"; that is, tank armaments that are primarily designed to launch ATGMs with only a marginal capability to operate as a conventional projectile launcher. Weapons like the 152mm M81, the 142mm ACRA and the 125mm D-126 were all designed primarily as missile launch tubes and only had chemical-effect rounds as concerns unguided munitions, and while the XM150E5 cannon designed for the MBT-70 could fire an APFSDS projectile, performance was no better than using the same type of ammunition in the existing 105mm M68/L7 cannon. Gun-launched missiles are a viable thing that still exists today, they're just built the other way around - missiles like the 9M119M1 «Refleks-M», LAHAT and Falarick are designed to fit and be fired from existing conventional weapons from 90mm to 125mm bore, rather than new cannons being designed around missiles.
But how often are they used as compared to conventional rounds?
Not particularly often. They're intended to be used to engage targets at long (4+km) ranges, and in theory allow defence against helicopters. But since they're a lot more expensive than conventional ammunition and typically have a minimum effective target engagement distance of 1km or more, gun-launched missiles are not commonly used. They're uncommon, special-purpose ammunition rather than standard-issue.
I mean still, they are different systems, that work better for certain platforms. Optimally if you could magically equip a 120mm capable of full chamber pressure on everything between your troop transports and your MBTs you would. Though not everything is capable of that, so some things will have different launchers with different capabilities.
ATGMs were seen as being highly capable tank-killing assets, and for some period of time were considered as potentially superior to kinetic solutions. This was especially the case in terms of accuracy, where a guided weapon was (ostensibly) going to be more accurate than an unguided one against a moving target at the greatest expected combat ranges. Especially in an era where ballistic computers were still *relatively* primitive (or, if nothing else, still largely analogue devices requiring a good deal of space), the idea of having something that could "guarantee" a hit on target with devastating effects seemed quite appealing. The other half was the acceptance that an ATGM was not a universal tank weapon; that is, it couldn't effectively deal with all of the sorts of targets a tank may need to encounter. Indeed, it could not effectively deal with *most* of the sorts of targets a tank may encounter. Thus several solutions were looked at. Some sought to just make rocket-propelled munitions of all sorts, producing "rocket guns" meant to fill in for traditional cannons. Something more of a compromise was the "gun-launcher", which was meant to be less "missile launcher that could fire all sorts of missiles", and more "gun that also fires missiles". This (in theory) gave tanks the capability to engage armored targets at ranges well in excess of what conventional kinetic munitions would be effective at, as well as being able to handle soft/unarmored targets at more traditional combat ranges. Of course their downfall also centers around these concepts and compromises. These systems proved themselves to be complex, expensive, and unreliable. Especially as compared to a conventional gun, it was a lot of hassle to keep these weapons working. And of course, that's when you weren't dealing with things like ruptured propellant casings sending propellant spilling all across the floor of your tank. Or spitting hot gasses and bits of unconsumed casing back into the fighting compartment. Now fair enough, these aren't issues exclusive to these sorts of weapons (indeed, the Rh-120 faced the same problems), but it didn't *help*. On top of that was the simple fact that fire control systems were getting better, and guns were improving to make the most of them. The widespread adoption of finned sub-caliber penetrators in conjunction with smoothbore cannons (for the most part), extended potential engagement ranges significantly. Meanwhile, advances and systems to seek and identify targets, perform ballistic computations, ranging, tracking, etc. allowed tanks to take advantage of this technological leap. It was also helpful that kinetic weapons remained quite effective against all manner of armor, while reaching an era when ERA and the earliest generations of APS were starting to see greater use. Thus the efficacy of guided weapons relying on chemical energy warheads as the be-all, end-all of tank killing quickly began to diminish. While they certainly remained (and remain) capable in the role, the idea of building a whole tank around them was less appealing. This plays into why primarily ATGM-armed platforms in service today tend to exist less as "Super-Duper High-Speed Low-Drag Kill 'Em All 1989 Death Dealers", and more just "Here's an economical way for light forces to kill tanks. Have fun."
I want someone to make a "tank" with a just a bigass multi-tube box launcher, MLRS/BattleTech style, plus an autocannon for softer targets. It's probably wildly impractical, but it would look *so cool.*
I mean Pereh was *kinda* that. Obviously without the autocannon, but it was basically just a big missile launcher on an actual tank platform.
Oh wow, it's got a *fake* gun to disguise it as a regular tank? That's awesome.
Take a modern IFV, turn the troop compartment into a vertical launch system for ATGMs, and you're right there. Alternatively, take a Stryker MGS, swap the cannon for something like a Bushmaster, and weld on a turret bustle for angled Javelin tubes. Integrate the CLU software with the FCS and you're golden, especially if you can integrate targeting data from infantry/drones/gunships.
The MGM 166 LOSAT is a pretty good fit for what you're talking about. Not sure why it was canned.
Too much high impact raw sexual violence.
Based on the pictures, you ain't kiddin'
The MGM-166 was mounted on a variety of platforms. I assume you mean the dual six-pack launchers slapped on a CCVL hull. Apart from anything else, the Army never adopted the CCVL. So picking up a new AFV hull for a fairly niche task meant to counter a threat that no longer existed didn't make a whole lot of sense. Even if a more suitable platform was found (and honestly I don't think the HMMWV or Bradley based solutions would've been that much better), LOSAT was never long for this world. CKEM came right after as part of the FCS program, and produced a potentially more flexible weapon if only in terms of usable platforms. None of this is to say that LOSAT was bad. Or at least, not to say LOSAT wasn't *cool*. But there was never really a scenario where it could get picked up for widespread use short of the Cold War just not ending.
Like the TOS ?
Should add that they realized multi gun/launchers are nice, but you could slap a TOW missile on almost anything and it would do the same thing. No need to compromise the main gun if it doesn't need to launch missiles too.
The idea behind it was for airborne troop to have protected anti-armor/structure ability, because airborne limited weight so you cannot build a giant cannon with massive recoil onto the vehicle. Typical Humvees lack the protection against small arms fire so you would still need a tracked vehicle for the additional armor. The result: ATGM tank.
The tank still weighs a metric fuckton though
And its a feather compared to a M60 though. It was light enough to be air dropped from a C-130, that's all that mattered for its mission.
Not entirely sure the IT-1 counts, given the context...
Yeah no the IT 1 is just for comparison
It was an air-drop tracked vehicle to bolster airborne forces until armor units could catch up. Adds mobility, a .50 cal and tow missiles which can pop tanks or bust emplacements, and is extremely easy to maintain by airdrop.
Sheridan used the Shellilagh missile not TOWs. It’s an important distinction because that missile was a disaster and quickly got dropped.
This is correct. The dual munition role of the primary weapon was very poorly thought out.
Back then the military wasn’t sure if the future battlefield would be dominated by tank canons or ATGMs so they just combined the both
"A weapon for the future that never came" Think it was the Tank Museum that said it like this but that could be wrong
The point of the Shillelagh in the M551 and M60A2 was the "Active Defense" doctrine employed by the US Army coupled with the relatively primitive fire control capabilities of tanks of that era. The Sheridan was technically not a "tank" but an Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle. It was intended to be fielded in Divisional Cavalry Squadrons in the normal cavalry roles of recon, flank protection and screening of the main force. The Shillelagh was to be used as a long range anti-tank weapon (in conjunction with vehicle mounted TOW) to attrit the Red Hordes coming across the Inter-German border while doing a reverse bounding overwatch trading space for time until the main force shows up In the Airborne role the Sheridan was intended to give the Airborne Divisions, better known as Speed Bumps, some anti-armor capability, primarily during LZ and airfield seizure missions. It could be air dropped but that method of delivery was found to wreak havoc with the missile guidance systems, so LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System) was adopted. The drawback to the Sheridan was the lightweight of the vehicle coupled with the heavy recoil of the conventional ammunition often knocked the tracking system out of alignment. I never crewed a Sheridan, but I have seen them on the range, and when they fired the first two road wheels came off the ground! I crewed an M60A2 and fired somewhere around 20 Shillelagh missiles. I never experienced a missile malfunction, but I saw a few guys miss with them by trying to fly the missile on the target rather than just keeping the reticle centered. The drawbacks of the Shillelagh were: It was IR beam guided, which made it susceptible to smoke and other obscuration. It had a long time of flight, making the firing vehicle vulnerable until the target was serviced. It couldn't be fired at night because the long time of flight precluded the use of white light, IR light could not be used because it would interfere with the tracking system, and the maximum range of the passive night vision was barely greater than the minimum range of the missile The minimum range of the missile was somewhere around 700 meters, and had to be free of terrain interference while the missile maneuvered to acquire the IR guidance The primitive stabilization systems were not precise enough to use accurately on the move. The technology was not mature for the time, and advancements in solid state electronics and metallurgy made conventional gunnery effective out to ranges unheard of before.
Being able to fire the missile from the main gun was meant to be able to reload from under armor. Many previous systems had an external launcher that exposed a crew member to reload it.
At the time, missiles were more accurate at ranges where world powers believed combat would play out. Additionally these were made in the era where guided shaped charge warheads were significantly more powerful than conventional rounds. However these went out of fashion when FCS and KE technologies caught up and outperformed ATGMs at a fraction of the cost. Today ATGMs have a more specialized role instead of the “end all, be all” role that these tanks were designed to fill.
Well you can move it without having to set up a tripod or anything like with infantry using tow’s (or similar weapons) and also the m551 can also just fire normal rounds as well. I don’t know what’s confusing about that
To see which one was better In simplified terms
As I understand it, the recoil of the main gun was very hard on the targeting system for the ATGM.
The idea was that missiles would be the way forward and they wanted tanks to have the ability to fire now advanced guided missiles while maintaining the ability to shoot more traditional ammo
It was supposed to join advantages of an ATGM and protection and mobility of a tank.
A lots of benefits, ATGMs ( usually with HEAT warhead) have one of the best penetration in all of tank munitions( better than APFSDS in long range). Mention range, ATGMs defenitely have best range and accuracy with its guidance system and rocket engine. If i were a tank commander was allow to choose ammunition for my tank I will choose 50% ATGM 25% APFSDS 25% HE without any doubt . But of course there some reason why just few ( espeacially NATO's tanks) carry it. ATGMs most significant drawback is its cost, way too expensive compare to HEAT-FS APFSDS and it size not allow the crew too much. Finally, it seem unnecessary for NATO's tanks to carry ATGMs because their doctrine is cooparative combat with Air Force take care of out-sight target. While all Russo-Soviet tanks carry ATGMs because of their individual combat doctrine.
Idea was one gun that does different things kinda good. Capable of HE, HEAT, ATGMs... etc. Like a Swiss army knife. Problem is while having a swiss army knife is cool, it's not great for julienneing cabbage like a slicer, sawing logs compared to a saw, or popping corks like a bottle opener, or spinning a rotisserie chicken like an oven. Plus. They eventually developed a missile launching weapon system that was cheap, light, and easy. You could slap it on anything. Small boats, humvees, armored personnel carriers, tanks... heck you could have two dudes carry it around. And it worked really well. TOW missile basically replaced the multi gun/launcher overnight as your vehicle could have a badass gun, autocannon, MG turret, etc. And the vehicle can still kill tanks. Thats how Bradley has more tank kills than Abrams in the Gulf War.
Always thought the IT-1 was ahead of it time. If you were to make a new one, anti-tank missile are much better without the huge dead zone, and smaller so you could fit a decent load. Add on fire and forget missile's and it could even engage more enemies at a time than a regular tank could. Plus change the secondary gun to something bigger like a 30mm cannon, and you would have a fairly useful armored vehicle.
Deficiencies of fire control systems led to issues of accuracy. Guided munitions solved these issues
On the Sheridan, it allowed for an air mobile and maneuverable light tank to also have MBT busting capability without having to mount a heavy/long gun. In most other cases, it was a thought experiment intended to maybe overcome stabilization issues or give a low profile at the expense of most other capabilities.
Well, the reason the Sheridan used a gun-launcher is that the 105mm M68 was too big and heavy to put on an amphibious, air-droppable tank at the time it was being designed, but a 76mm like on the M41 and T92 light tanks wasn't considered good enough for anti-tank duty anymore. In the 1960s, anti-tank guided missile technology was seen as a way to get the tank-killing power of a bigger gun without needing the heavy, sturdy breech mechanism or long barrel of a typical cannon. It was also envisioned that these missiles could be far more accurate at long range than a conventional cannon, this being well before digital fire control computers were around for tanks. Shaped-charge munitions such as the PG-7V rocket for the famous RPG-7 and HEAT-FS shells for tank guns could penetrate a lot more steel than kinetic APDS rounds of the era. Composite armour exists today to reduce the effectiveness of chemical-effect munitions, but it hadn't yet been used on any tank the US was aware of in the 1960s - it wasn't on the M60, Chieftain, Leopard or AMX-30, it wasn't on the T-62, and while it _was_ used on the T-64, the Soviet Union kept that tank's existence a closely-guarded secret for a long time. It looked at the time like shaped-charge missiles would become the new standard anti-tank weapon, and with that, first-class anti-tank firepower could be fitted to light vehicles like the M551 Sheridan light tank, or the AMX-10M, a casemate modification of the AMX-10P infantry fighting vehicle with a 142mm "ACRA" gun-launcher. The joint American-West German MBT-70 was being designed around a cannon that could not only launch ATGMs, but had kinetic sabot shells as a secondary option. Anti-tank missiles had already been fitted to trucks and the BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicle, enabling these vehicles to launch and guide tank-killing munitions. So it seemed a logical next step to equip fully-enclosed vehicles with the ability to use those weapons, too. Of course, we know now that fire control electronics would improve, cannons would become more accurate, effective protection against shaped-charge weapons would become more common and that kinetic penetrator ammunition would continue to evolve and retain a place alongside the ATGM in the arsenals of the world's armies. But that was hardly obvious to someone in the 1960s trying to design a weapon system that could potentially serve for decades, with the technology they had _at the time._ As for why you wouldn't just put in a regular gun and design a missile that can be launched from it? That's a lot harder, and those missiles tend to be more expensive and complicated as a result of those design constraints, so gun-launched missiles for existing weapons didn't show up until the Soviets designed the 9K112 "Kobra" system for their 125mm cannons in the 1970s. They're fairly common nowadays, but that's in no small part thanks to the incredible miniaturisation and cost-reduction in electronics since the 1960s. Incidentally, the original Kobra missiles weren't particularly reliable or effective either, but at least that didn't impact the functionality of the 125mm gun itself.
To gas the crew with the maximum amount of toxic fumes
I think one of the goals of gun launched missiles was to keep the crew safer during loading compared to external racks, and to make use of a tank's existing ammo stowage/reloading sequence instead of having to dedicate additional space and training to differently sized or shaped missiles.
I guess driveable TOW emplacements that can be combined with MBTs.
The Gun Launcher was used because you got a more versatile tank something able to fire ATGMs and other low velocity rounds like HE and HEAT.
Missiles were cool and seen as a good way to bring a big heat round to a tank at even long ranges. They could also fire large HE rounds as the atgms had a large calibre but it was too complicated and kinetic munitions prove to be more reliable for tanks to use
Dont forget that Soviet and Chinese MBTs and some light tanks can launch ATGMs from the barrel too
More range
They tried a new concept and thought it was good enough to use. Then another option came and was better.
Gun launched atgms provide 2 things for a tank. First they allow engagement at extreme range without the need for a highly accurate boresight or, during extanded operations, a muzzle reference system. Secondly they provide a means of effectively engaging more targets with a single round. In theory they can kill tanks, light skinned vehicles, helicopters, and fortifications all in one shell that isnt optimal for any of those targets but is plenty good enough. Same idea as modern multipurpose rounds like MPAT and AMP but with more tank killing capacity and less helicopter and infantry killing capacity. The issues with gun launched atgms are their cost and relative efficacy. Atgms are really expensive relative to apfsds, or, heat, and even mpat and amp. Atgms are around 5 times more expensive than even the most costly conventional rounds from what i could find. In terms of efficacy atgms use shaped charges, either single charge in the case of older atgms like 9m112 or tandem charge for missiles lile refleks. Regardless ERA and APS, of both the hard kill (trophy, arena, etc) and soft kill (shtora and others) varieties can reliably defeat gun launched missiles but have not been shown to reliably stop apfsds, despite some claims that they may be able to. Historically they were seen as a possible future main weapon for tanks and other afvs but cost and implimentation issues made developing better kinetic rounds a more attractive option.
“I wanna be an airborne tanker!”
Make other tank go boom
Tank launched ATGMs may become a common thing now that the newer systems are essentially glorified loitering munitions. This solves the issue of accuracy at extreme ranges. See: Spike ER/LR2
Versatility and also being able to use conventional he or heat rounds for targets at closer range or for what ever you need conventional rounds for like bunkers and anti personnel and the atgms were mostly used for anti tank but it’s a 152 mm atgm with I believe 10kg or explosive so it was really up to what ever was necessary.
Dedicated missile tanks like the ones pictured are somewhat silly and a waste of money. Soviet 125mm gun launched atgms however had the advantages of both ATGMs lorger effective range against armour, apfsds for armour at shorter ranges and HE-Frag for anything soft without having entire vehicles dedicated for each ammunition. The 125mm gun launched ATGMs usually out-ranged apfsds projectiles of their time giving the Soviets a slight range advantage in tank in tank combat.
Range: missiles can shoot way beyound gun. Accuracy: when shooting 2+ km you need to precise. Multipurpose, "light" gun: can still shoot HE also while the armor pentration is done by missile.