Russian Army ATGM Thread

No real misses at all. Keep in mind that they shoot at targets that were already hit 50+ times with all sorts of missiles and projectiles. In real life you don´t shot at a tank that has gapping holes in his side and no more turret.

I saw no misses tho...

Isos wrote:

Hole wrote:No real misses at all. Keep in mind that they shoot at targets that were already hit 50+ times with all sorts of missiles and projectiles. In real life you don´t shot at a tank that has gapping holes in his side and no more turret.

Who cares ? The kornet has a rear facing guidance system and the targets are big enough for the operator to see them correctly and point the laser toward them.

The holes in the tanks have no impact on the guidance or the missile results. It should hit where the operator wants it to hit.

It's clearly missile malfunctions.

Even your source, who can be just as biased as the rest of them, acknowledges that some of those "misses" wouldn't happen if the targets had their turrets.

@RALee85
BMP-2M went 1 for 3 with Kornet ATGM launches as well. To be fair, some would have likely been hits if the tank targets still had their turrets. 12/

All well and good, but in a near peer conflict its not worth risking multimillion dollars worth of advanced attack helicopter just to save on thousands of dollars worth of missiles.

Not sure you are properly appreciating the situation properly.

During Desert Storm the US used any sandstorm to their advantage... a sandstorm is amazing... often you can't see your hand in front of your face... and when it passes all your optics are useless until you clean them down... the Americans used to follow sandstorms towards Iraqi positions so that as the sandstorm cleared the Iraqis were suddenly presented with enemy forces right in their faces picking them off as they appear out of the clouds of sand.

Krisantema was designed as a ground based system but can equally be used in aircraft and helicopters... but in defence or attack it can be launched into or out of a sand storm or snow storm to hit targets who likely wont be aware they are under attack until boom... other weapons wont be working...

And that is against any enemy peer or non peer.

Except it has to hover in place all the while the missile flies to its target otherwise the missile gets 'lost'.

Who told you that?

Soviet and Russian helicopters never hover when attacking targets... only western helicopters used to do that and now they don't if they can help it because a hovering helicopter is an easy target for RPGs and ATGMs.

The Ataka and Shturm missile the Mi-28 and Mi-24/35 use has a field of regard of about 160 degrees where the helicopter can turn 80 degrees in either direction after firing and still guide the missile with its command guidance system.

I would rather suspect the angles for the Krisantema are as good or better and in the current models the mast mounted radar would be directing the missile.

A T-14 with its dedicated MAWS against air-to-ground missiles and integrated digital FCS would have little problem detecting the source of the launch and then sniping the static launcher with a very fast and precise APFSDS shot.

APFSDS would be a poor choice of ammo... an air burst HE Frag round would make rather more sense aimed above the helicopter prefereably... if it is hovering behind cover like Apaches are trained to do.

A Tor or a Tunguska? Don't even think about it.

The west does not really have anything like those.

It doesn't matter if NATO ATGMs are slow and fly on easily detectable paths; the reality is the vast majority of the time the air defence units are going to be out of position or the kill chain is too slow for them to do anything about it.

The Russian Army air defence vehicles operate with the armoured vehicle units they are part of with the express intention of shooting down enemy fired munitions including missiles... that is their job... scanning the skies over the vehicles for threats... if it picks up some Javelins... well TOR can eat such a target for breakfast very very easily, while the vehicles the javelin was aimed at will be returning fire.

Hence, the push for integrating expensive APS on the close combat elements where they are in prime intercepting point and have enclosed internal engagement cycles necessary to keep engagement times to a minimum.

The money they spent on TORs and Tunguskas make the cost of APS system look like chump change... and you notice they didn't replace ERA with APS and IADS with APS... they use everything that will work together...

That NATO weapons are expensive shouldn't necessarily hold true for the equivalent Russian analogues. For starters, any new Russian ATGM would be built on a modern electronics base so they should be much cheaper while still having much better performance than older counterparts. Its not as if the current crop of ATGMs were dirt cheap when they were introduced - the technology just got cheaper over time.

The new article 305 will be more expensive than Ataka or Krisantema because it uses an IIR seeker and a digital datalink, but it will also add capabilities that those older command guided and radar guided missiles cannot offer.

It wont replace them it will compliment them.

Stocks of shitty multimillion dollar top attack ATGMs are inevitably lower. In a peer to peer conflict, having enough guided munitions not to be used up on the first few days of combat is important.

Indeed shiny expensive missiles at arms displays are one thing but can a country afford to buy enough to have them in useful numbers when it counts and if the brown stuff does hit the whirling bladed room cooling system, are they going to be able to resupply you quickly and efficiently with more at a price you can afford?

The fact is, F&F ATGMs are inherently easy to spoof and jam(with as little as a smokescreen or tree cover) as well as to detect their launches. SACLOS ATGMs are injammable, and its hard to detect them in time due to their fast flight time and no designating laser.

Exactly... Javelin loses its FF capability if the target is not hot... whether because it has been stationary with the engine off or it has Nakidka camo skirting gear on... it does not get any cheaper and becomes a million dollar Metis-M.... a missile you could probably buy 2,000 of for the price of one Javelin system... and that is the Metis model with the thermal sights.

Its never the case of having one but not the other; stop presenting this as a false dichotomy when its not. You can only afford fewer in comparison, sure, but if you are shooting them against high value targets like tanks exclusively and not some fox hole you are getting the value out of your money's worth from these weapons.

But that is the problem... the user is a human being who could care less how much it costs... they just know there is fire coming from a small building too far away to hit with rifle fire or AT-4 fire so he gets out the Javelin and takes down a small corner of a building... value for money?

I doubt it. Nothing in Afghanistan was worth one Javelin.

Clearly not, because we seen one just hover while practice shooting. And sure, the Mi-28 can hide behind trees, its not as if tanks with their powerful zoom optics can't spot a copse just dancing around and set an airburst round over the top just to do a vibe check

Airburst rounds don't track targets... they just explode at a specific point on their trajectory either via a timed fuse or a proximity fuse.

Russian helicopters never fire in a hover... whether it is cannon or rockets or missiles...

That don't exist in metal. You can't fight actual tanks with fantasy missiles.

They were going to introduce the Pine SAM... also called SOSNA-R, but have delayed the introduction while they increase the booster rocket motor size and extend the range of the missile to 20km from 10km.

The Pine is a dual use anti armour anti aircraft missile.... the new booster increases the initial speed to 1.7km/s... we know because the 20km range Pantsir uses the same solid rocket booster...

Except, by breaking the LOS, the enemy can't capitalize on the shorter ranges when had it been otherwise he would have been able to train more weapons back at his target.

Most of the optical trackers for Pantsir and TOR will reacquire a target if it emerges again... they use autotrackers to follow their targets.

New missiles like the izd 306 are slow missiles... 250m/s and probably follow a lofted trajectory so even if the target ducks down behind LOS from the launch vehicle it will likely still be visible to the missile which has climbed up into the air sufficiently to look down at the target... vehicle or helicopter... then it is just a case of closing in and hitting the target from above without warning.

Only if you have the very expensive and delicate self-protection suites to equip your tanks with, and in enough numbers for it to matter. Seeing as even now only the T-14 has one integrated it shouldn't come as a surprise if these systems wouldn't be encountered much for them to present any difficulties.

Their T-90s have SHTORA EW systems and all have smoke... both grenades and engine based systems...

They will also all have APS they have said.

Its a short hand for the process(es) between acquiring a target and killing it which are likened to a chain due to how they must be interconnected sequentially for the entire thing to work, hence kill-chain. I like it.

I am sure it started in a board room... like game changer and taking things to a whole new level... and it is totally flawed because a kill chain on a meat works involves the live animal having an explosive bolt fired into its brain... if it wasn't washed properly before hand it still dies...

It also uses an analogy which is dangerous.

Have you ever heard people talking about the fabric of space. Have you then heard them talk about stretching space and even tearing space.

The obvious problem is that if you use fabric to describe something that clearly isn't made of any fabric at all then you start treating it like something it is not.

Space is not a fabric so the idea that space can tear or stretch is only assumptions made about the wrong thing... we think space can stretch... for all we know it can stretch forever and might never tear.

The big bang contained all the light and energy and mass of this universe in a tiny point of space... well would that not create an enormous black hole and contract into nothing, but it clearly didn't, so it must have been a super compressed space... compressed so far that perhaps black holes would be impossible to exist... which suggests as it spreads and expands the chances of black holes increases and the threshhold to create one might get lower and lower... who knows.

And yeah, sure go ahead, tell that story to the thousands of victims of subsonic ATGMs who barely detected they are under attack until the last few seconds, at which point there's barely not much you can even do anything about it.

Missiles don't need to be supersonic to be effective, but being able to fire them and get a kill and be able to move on to another target or shift position to avoid return fire or being spotted is a good thing too.

Roland and stormer HVM are equal to Tunguska and Tor.

Unproven so far AFAIK...

Lot of misses for the kornet missile. Similar to last year. More in the thread.

Did you watch the video yourself?

Looks like two hits to me... 100% kill rate... pretty damn good.

TMA1 wrote:I saw no misses tho...

The Twatter post is a random collection of unrelated videos and some edits that are highly dubious. The first video with the dual Kornet
launch shows the target actually being hit. Then we have a bunch of other videos showing other supposed Kornet attacks. I will
not take the word of the Twatter user that these are actual Kornet missile detonations and not detonations from shells.

Smells like an Ukr "let's smear Russia while we wallow in the toilet" post.

No they are not. I'm not even a diehard russia fanboy.

The video you linked to only had two missile launched and both appeared to hit.

Keep in mind, that they shoot the oldest gear mostly at wargames.
Some of these missiles are shoot only to prove if they can be kept in storage after a certain time.
Some of the prove faulty, leading to a recalibration of the reminding stock, and/or removing some found faulty.
I would not apply any serious calculations to that.
If you have a 100k stock, who cares that 10% will be dude? Yeah the ones that shoot them

I think it's important to keep in mind that the system used to guide these missiles is tried and true. During the Soviet's war in Afghanistan, they reported something in the ballpark of an 85% hit rate on Shturms launched from Mi-24s; which is pretty impressive when you consider the sighting systems of the day. Just recalled that Shturms use a different guidance method. Scratch last. Even still, The various other ground-based ATGMs with the rearward laser seeker have been quite competent over the decades.

I'd be far more inclined to believe that these misses are due to the crews rushing their job in what looks like a strictly choreographed event; or that (as others have mentioned) the stocks being used are ancient, which certainly wouldn't surprise me. I doubt those displays are payed for by Army-Games spectators, so chances are the cheap stuff is being used.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the environment was very smokey and dusty. They had all manner of MLRSs and cannons kicking up all sorts of shit into the air. I wouldn't blame the missiles for misreading some of the aiming cues coming from the launch platform due to that.

A precisation: what are Army games exactly?

Training, competition or an exibition?

Because in the first case case I would blame lack of training, in the second the challenge set, that could not be trivial or too easy.

You think missiles are perfect and kill every time they are launched...

When they talk about 90% kill rate they don't mean 100% hit the target and 10% don't destroy the tank... they mean some of this:

Take a look again at those movies, frame by frame, I just did.
I really wonder if we face a miss here.
He twitted another film with BPM-2 10h ago, and we can clearly see similarities.
For me, in both cases missile actually "hit" the target, at the same spot, but the warhead did not explode.
They are shooting at tanks that are already in heavy usage as targets, some of the plates can be already torn apart.
So MAYBE the missiles just fly through, making the warhead exploding only on the earth wall behind.

Yes, this is the one.
It is a sure hit to me, check the frames.

Now that last video was certainly a miss.

That is just the first video again... both hits.

The ground behind the target is flat so if one missile missed it would not explode anywhere near the target... it would carry on down the range and hit the ground 100m past the target vehicle.

It is clear that the "coverage" of this Rob Lee is strongly partial and biased, also in manufacter's charts the average percentage of hits of manually operated ATGM of those class are around 80% at over 2000 m of distance, taking into account the range (this year 3 km, or about 500 m over the maximum distance of standard ATGM training of NATO forces....), the somewhat scarce visibility and ,above all, a pair of targets devoid of over 60% of theirs mass and silhouette ,we see a totally normal percentage of miss for manually guided missiles at those distances

For beginnig : all the vehicles with automatic target recognition tracking and missile guidance (in the dynamic presentations those was represented by Тигр-М with Корнет-Д and the new БМП "Бумеранг") have achieved 100% of hits.

Second : the man selected what to show, at example it avoided most of 3 day shooting and even more....obviously.... all the last day presentation , where the most experienced crew usually operate (down here)





Anyone can see a single "miss" here (in reality a missile shot by a T-90A with a guidance malfunction); all the others are:

-"Бумеранг" fire at 1:23 (1:1)
- БМД-4М at 7:52 (3:3)
- БМП-2М at 13:30 (3:3)
- БМП-3 and Т-80БВМ at 27:26 (3:3)
- Тигр-М with Корнет-Д at 39:56 (3:3) (the video lose the "tandem" shots to show the fire from ТОС-1А)

Therefore do not exist any problem with the equipement ,even the manually guided ones : force a TOW operator against partially destoyed targets, at 3 km of distance, among wide smoke/dust and with very limited time for shot and it will refuse even only to participate.....

Mindstorm wrote:
It is clear that the "coverage" of this Rob Lee is strongly partial and biased,

It might be a valid point, on the film with double shots he clearly comments a miss for a missile that hit the lower chassis.
Not trying to be a judge here, I see the same you do but take that comments with a grain of salt buds.