Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1086092
Anti-tank defense – what should it be like? As you can tell – if used correctly, tanks can be very resistant to damage, that's why every army that respects itself puts a great em- phasis on the issue of anti-tank measures. This usually involves a comprehensive system that makes it possible to destroy vehicles throughout the entire depth of the battlefield. The concept dates back to the times of the Cold War, when the Soviet ar- mored-mechanized forces were the main threat. This was when an "ideal model" of anti-tank defense was devised. What was it about? The first strike against advancing armed forces was to take place already from a distance of over 150 km away from own forc- es, by means of air-based standoff weapons such as JSOW, Apache, Taurus and other. At a distance of below 70 km, the idea was to employ attack helicopters (e.g. AH-64), supported neces- sarily by MLRS rocket launchers. MLRS systems were to "thin out" the enemy's anti-aircraft defense measures, and AH-64s were to strike the exposed targets. If the distance was smaller than 30 km, the method of choice was to be the conven- tional 155 mm artillery, firing both DPICM warheads in great numbers and "auto-targeting" ammunition that involves intelligent projectiles sensing and auto-locking on tanks (e.g. SADARM, SMARt, BONUS). At a distance close to FEBA, tanks were to be combated by all means available – battlefield support aviation (equipped with missiles such as Maverick or munitions dispensers), laser-guided artillery mis- siles (Krasnopol, Copperhead, Excalibur, etc.), and light helicopters with anti-tank guided missiles (e.g. Bö.105), special vehicles – tank destroyers (e.g. Jaguar, M1134, etc.). Defense forces at the battal- ion-company level had their own organic anti-tank guided missiles fitted with infantry fighting vehicles and portable launchers. It was very important to have engineering measures at disposal too – scat- terable or conventionally-laid mines, supported by off-route mines. Light armor-piercing weapons used by infantry were the last resort. The above model was adopted in the US, Sweden, Germany, France, Great Britain, Israel, and (disregarding some name-related details) in the USSR. At present, many other countries are trying to form such deep and multi-layer defense systems – including South Korea, Ja- pan, China, India, Turkey, Greece, etc. LAND FORCES