Frag Out! Magazine
Issue link: https://fragout.uberflip.com/i/1086092
with the Regina and Kruk, right? The problem is that such an approach is an attempt to form a "system" based on no longer current consid- erations, ignoring the present transformation of the armor plating the battle vehicles of today. The transformation has brought about not only effective reactive armor but also – and mainly – hard-kill active protection systems such as the already mentioned Trophy. Fighting vehicles featuring APSs has become really difficult and costly, and actually only highly advanced systems are capable of it. It's almost dead cert that the measures to combat "active protection" solutions cannot be used with hand-held armor-piercing grenade launchers. This means an even greater stratification in the defenses of armored vehicles. There will be two classes of targets on the battlefield. The first will include vehicles featuring APSs and effective heavy armor, occurring in small numbers (because of their cost), extremely difficult to fight and calling for new combat measures such as next-generation heavy ATGM systems as well as engineering and artillery solutions. It may appear necessary to engage vehicles with 120–140 mm guns fir- ing kinetic energy penetrators. The other class of targets will encom- pass everything else, i.e. everything not valuable enough to be fitted with APSs or impossible to be equipped with "active protection" solu- tions because of the limited budget of a given country. Most likely, as it is right now, the group will be composed of light armored vehicles, WAVs, and a great majority of IFVs and APCs. These are targets that can be combated without any powerful HEAT warheads or top-attack weapons, that's why the Polish Armed Forces' intentions to acquire special reloadable armor-piercing grenade launchers, light "conven- tional" ATGMs, hybrid grenade launchers or special light "top-attack" weapons designed to fight tanks seem to be unreasonable. Such solu- tions are expensive, usually heavy, and sizeable. The quicker and more comprehensively the neighboring countries equip their vehicles with APSs, the less feasible investing in the said measures will be. Also, the existing armored carriers, WAVs, and over 90% of IFVs currently in service can be fought effectively using disposable grenade launchers boasting an armor-piercing performance of about 500–550 mm RHA. This points to their small size and low weight, and – consequently – affordable price. They are also a non-regular type of weapon, which means they can be engaged on an as-necessary basis. So how to revitalize the Polish anti-tank defenses taking the ongoing revolution in the field of the protection measures used with armored vehicles into consideration? Given the small 'population' of the Polish Air Forces and the problems with close air support, it doesn't seem sensible to extend the potential of our F-16s in this scope – there are too few of them and they are too valuable to be exposed to the risk of becoming easily destroyed above the battlefield. Paradox- ically, the Kruk program will not be a remedy to the weakness of our anti-tank defenses – even though it will be promoted as such. There are two reasons why it won't produce the desired effect – one related to quantity, the other related to quality. The first is quite simple – the purchase of 16 – and eventually 32 – AH-64Es (it's pretty certain that the American offer will be chosen), given the known facts concern- ing the performance of these machines, will make their impact on the events taking place on the battlefield rather small because there will be too few of them – like in the case of our F-16s. The quality-related reason is a bit more complex. Russian separate motor rifle brigades FOTO: 17 WBZ www.fragoutmag.com