Will SAF replaces section level Armbrust with Predator?

(do not post nonsense postings suggesting Coy Support or AT team weapons like milan2T/3, spike, trigat mr, mbt law, eryx etc. a better replacement)

Errrm.....

I thot the MBT-LAW is section support class weapon?

First, I need to know why we need to change the Armbrust. Yes, PT-91s is a probable reason but they have only order 48. At most 100. But do we really need
to equip all our section with a AT weapon to defeat it?

BTW, most AT weapons that ara able to defeat ERA-equipped tanks weigh about 10kg and above (in other words almost 2x of Armbrust weight). Hence we need to know if we really need to equip the section the capabiltiy to defeat such tanks.

Secondly, does the weapon need to be multi-purpose, i.e., against bunkers and such? I know Kestral / Predator uses a EFP instead of a HEAT round. Other AT weapons use a HEAT round which can be used to open up bunkers....

Third, are there any limits as to how one would define a AT weapon to be a section level weapon?
- Weight: single man-portable / operated?
- Range: ???
- Guided? unguided?
- Assume no firing platform required (aka Milan, Spikes)
- Penetrating power

Having said that, potential contenders are:
- Armbrust (i.e., no change) ;)
- Panzerfaust3 (Germany)
- MBT-LAW (Sweden, UK)
- Kestral / Predator (US)
- Shipon (Israel)
- RPG-7 (Russia)

Aiya, Armbrust replacement selected liao... Its the MATADOR. Dont look at me, I'm not the first to reveal its name. It has been posted here or in SGFORUMs before. Its not available elsewhere. Heard its a joint collaboration project. Also, its no meant to engage MBTs. Its main targets are more lightly armoured AFVs, like their Adnan class IFVs.....

LOL,

Yes...but someone else oso said its Panzerfaust3.

And of course the thread died after a while.

So, we are still lost as to whether they will be a replacement, and if so, what it is....

Any specs on the so-called MATADOR? Is it in fact a SHIPON 2? :ph43r:

firstly, i do not know why you mentioned PT-91 and targeted it.

secondly, i do not know why you mentioned to equip a section with AT weapon.

thirdly, you seems to think SAF 7 men infantry section is a AT team.

i consider all the above as a nonsense posting.

(do not post nonsense postings suggesting Coy Support or AT team weapons like milan2T/3, spike, trigat mr, mbt law, eryx etc. a better replacement)

Huh? :blink:

Xerovix,

Please, please do spend some time doing your research so that the forum can be more professional. Your response appears condescending, which would have been fine if you have done your research and not fall flat on the face.

For starters, the Armbrust is an AT weapon. The reason why it is an AT weapon is that it has an HEAT (which stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank) warhead.

MINDEF describes the Armbrust as follows:

"Anti Armour Weapon
Armbrust Light Anti-Tank Weapon (LAW)

The ARMBRUST is a short-range light weapon that can also be used against enemy’s weapon emplacements. It is a recoilless expendable weapon that can be used in small-enclosed areas. The ARMBRUST is delivered by the manufacturer as a complete sealed munition."

Enuff' said.

This brings us to the second point. As MINDEF's official description puts it, it can also be used against enemy's emplacements. This is a well-known operational tactic. While it is not perfect, it gets the job done. You can see that in movies such as Band of Brothers, Saving Pte Ryan (use of bazookas against MG positions). These are also documented in engagements during Vietnam War where the Vietcongs used the RPG-7 against US troops. Ditto if you read any or most literature on AT weapons (For example, while a AT weapon, the Milans were used in the Falklands by the Brits against Argentine bunkers). BTW, the US uses M72 LAW during that time - which you will recall is a tube-launched rocket (the one where u need to extend the tube to fire?)

The perfect anti-bunker warheads would be one that has a warhead to punch through the concrete, before detonating a second warhead when the rocket is in. The second warhead is usually of a High Explosive or themobaric nature, very different from a HEAT round.

Now we have established that the Armbrust is primarily an AT weapon, and secondary against bunkers and such, my original question(s) remains:
- Why change it? Is it reaching its end-of-life or it has become ineffective against new tanks that our neighbours have bought? Or has SAF changed its doctrine and decided to now equip the section with a weapon that destroys bunkers only?
- Section Level Classification? Depending on your doctrine and / or mission, one can change what is a section level-class weapon. What are your limits in terms of weight, range, no. of rounds, cost, guided, non-guided, etc. There is nothing to prevent say teh US Army from issuing Javelins to the section - afterall it was considered man-portable (despite it weighing some 23kg in all).

Finally, you mentioned Predator as a possible replacement for the Armburst. This perplexes me the most. FYI, the Predator is also an AT weapon. It uses a explosively formed penetrator warhead - similar to HEAT except that it uses lens to focus the explosion to penetrate the armour. EFPs are usually used for top-down attack on tanks. I do not know if they are any good against bunkers.

Not wishing to cross swords with anyone here, but who now is the one making a "nonsense" posting? <_<

Do feel free to comment on any of my points here. If you have any queries, I will be happy to take them.

Best Regards on your research

again, you seems to have problem understanding the simple posting.

let me repost it again....
"Will SAF replaces section level Armbrust with Predator?

(do not post nonsense postings suggesting Coy Support or AT team weapons like milan2T/3, spike, trigat mr, mbt law, eryx etc. a better replacement) "

the truck load of replies you posted had got nothing to do with the above topic.

i think i do not need to mention much that AT team is from the support coy and not from the 7men section.

and since you claim you do not know much about the predator, so stop asking ppl to make a research before posting.

southpark,

please, please do spend some time doing your research so that the forum can be more professional. your resplies appears condescending, which would have been fine it will be fine you have read and understand carefully and not fall flat on your nose again.

Shipon, anti-tank weapon is in development at the Rocket Systems Division (RSD) of IMI. Shipon is a new shoulder launched infantry weapon system based on an unguided rocket, capable of defeating tanks and fortified targets from a range of 600 meters. Two versions of Shipon ammunition are currently in development – the dual mode anti-tank/anti-fortification rocket uses a tandem shaped charge warhead designed to defeat advanced reactive armour and penetrate up to 800mm of armoured steel. The anti-fortification/anti-personnel rocket is designed to penetrate walls, and explode inside building for maximum effect. Other types of ammunition are considered for future development, including extended range rockets.

Shipon rocket utilizes the combat proven SMAW (B-300) propulsion system, RSD is currently evaluating the introduction of soft-launch propulsion, to enable operations from buildings and bunkers. Offered as a low-cost weapon, Shipon is designed to fill the gap between anti-tank rockets and expensive missiles. The development of the missile is in an advanced stage, and initial demonstrations are expected by 2003. A major development effort is focused on a unique fire control system which is attached to the disposable canister. The FCS is designed to implement a unique, real-time cross-wind measurement along the trajectory to the target. Other functions include range-finder, automatic compensation for launcher inclination, moving target engagement capability, automatic cross-hair repositioning and other advanced features, which contribute to achieving hit probability over 50% at a range of 600 meters. The fire control system takes less than one second to calculate and set the gunner’s aiming point to hit a target as far as 1000 meters away. Shipon system weight is 9 kg.

Maybe you should have been more specfic, and asked for non-missile based systems, which I believe is your focus on the Armbrust replacement.

I reckon that MBT-Law system would also fall into the category for use in the 7man squad. It is a non-missile based system as far as I know.
As much as we try not to duplicate the AT teams, it is inadvertently becoming more of a grey area as well. Nowadays, such anti-armor system also try to cover the anti-MBT role, albeit at much shorter range, and more of a back-up to systems such as Spike, Trigat, Tow 2A/B.

LOL,

If you are seeking for a simple yes / no / maybe answer, then my response to you will be:

"Yes...eventually...dunno when....also dunno if it is the Predator. Please ask MINDEF."

This answer will get us nowhere unless some guy reveals something most of us do not know. I think this will be rare as those who are closer to the "ground" might not want to reveal "state secrets" at this point in time yet.....

Hence, the best way to move forward and progess in terms of intellect is to make logical deductions & conclusions instead of requesting to be fed, hence the question "why should we change" before we determine the "into what" question you are asking.

The principles of "if ain't broken, dun fix it" applies due to cost of retraining and replacement. E.g., the M-16S1 was satisfactory enough....new options before the SAR-21 (SAR-80, SR-88) did not do a significantly better job. Hence, it was not changed till SAR-21 came about. And if you will recall, the SAR-80 was a 80's product.

I have done my research on Predator. That's why I can tell you it has a EFP warhead and not HEAT warhead. In case you did not notice, it has been URL-ed in my earlier post. I am just not sure of EFP's performances on bunkers. The reason is not that it cannot penetrate, but rather it was traditionally used for top-down attacks (aka Bonus ammo) as opposed to direct fire mode. You might also wanna check the ARMADA website. They did a comprehensive survey on AT weapons in 2002. I think the pdf link is still there...

BTW, the links to Armbrust and MINDEF (on Armbrust) are also URL-ed....

From your posting, it seems to suggest that you done enough research on the Predator. Care to share the links or documents here? Else, you can PM me the docs if you are unable to upload them.

I think you tend to also misread my post. What I am saying is that miltary planners can dictate how much a section carry to battle. Hence, there is no reason why say the US Army cannot issue Javelins to each section. It's all about the needs of the mission and the projected enemy the planners foresee the section would face. And as mentioned, why can't you use these Javelins against enemy troops and bunkers, i.e., as a section-level direct fire support weapon. Not AT team, I must say.

Cheers

Southpark
The Dude

What is the weight of all these replacements?

Warspite,

All the weapons I have listed in my inital post are conisdered unguided weapons, which Xerovix for some reaon or another considers it "a nonsense posting". Hence, I think he / she is not keen to discuss which unguided weapon would replace the Armbrust but that he / she merely wanting a yes / no confirmation answer to his / her question.

Armada's Guide to Anti-Armor Weapons

Warspite, judging from your knowledge of MBT-LAW, I gather you might have read it already but for the benefit of the rest here, this is a good guide to start with when talking about AT weapons. Links to Army-Technology are also good.

F-35,

The links to Army-Tech does show the weight of the various weapons. Click on one my earlier links. At the bottom right, click on specifications. You should see some mention of weight (as well as in the text).

Most weapons that defeat ERA armour, guided or otherwise, weight around 9 - 12kg. Guess it has gotta do with the dual warhead (each about 2+kg). Most also tend to have a diameter of between 90 - 120mm as opposed to Armbrust's 67mm.

Hope that helps.

Cheerrs

Southpark
The Dude

Question... Is it really very import to have such a powerful LAW. There isn't much Armoured opponents to speak of.

Does it make sense to equip every single infrantry section with a weapon that can defeat reactive armour when there are only 48 MBTs with reactive armour in SEA.

Just throwing an alternate view.....

Maybe something simple and light (read current armburst) will suffice.

btw: any plans to upgrade the 84mm RR?

Southpark,

Do you know what the minimum arming range of the rockets you just described are? I should think that in urban warfare, the tight constrains due to structural build-up would greatly reduce the distance between the target and the Armburst/replacement operator. If the engagement distance is shorter than the minimum self-arming distance of the warhead, the rocket would simply bounce off the surface of the target as deadweight, no?

Agree with you minimum arming distance is critical for urban AT weapons. Rockets mentioned have minimum arming distances of between 20 - 50m. And yes, the round will be duds if it hits the tanks within the minimum arming distance.

The min. arming distance is of course to protect the firer (in case no one knows, your M203 round also has a minimum arming distance - but I forgot how far as I haven't been back for a long while) :D

Another reason is because of the trajectory of the weapon. All might recall the TV images of Javelins firing in Gulf War II? Because of its lofted trajectory, anything wihtin the initial 10 or so metres cannot be engaged. (You will probably kill yourself too if you do engage it in the distance in the direct fire mode) :D

Ranges for potential replacement of Armbrust:

MBT-LAW --> 20m - 600m
Panzerfaust3 --> ?* - 400 / 500m (depending on ammo; * suspect around 20m)
Predator/Kestral --> 17 m to 600m
RPG-7 --> ??* - 400m (*suspect it's about 20m)

As a comparison:
SPIKE-LR --> 200m to 4,000m
Javelin --> 60m* - 2,500m (*Source: Armada)

Will revert if I can on the minimum arming distances....

Cheers

Southpark
The Dude

F-35,

Precisely my point about "why change the Armbrust?"!!! :D

- Maybe an updated version of it would suffice?
- And Like you said, maybe change / upgrade the 84mm (still a old but versatile and effective weapon, save for the weight and backblast showing where your position is)

Southpark
The Dude

Upgrade the 84mm? I believe its already being done, simply by adding a new thermal sight to augment the ol' iron sight/std sight.

As for addressing the anti-ERA armor, you can always buy the FFV751 round. Its got a tandem warhead designed specifically against ERA armor.

What thermal sight? I've only used a night vision sight on the 84mm gun. Same one used on the MGs, but with a different adaptor mount.
Locally, we use the FFV551 HEAT round - I've never fired the FFV751 round (may no longer have that chance).

There is a newer, lighter version of the gun - the M3, at about 8.5kg vs. 14kg for the older version. The barrel uses a thin steel liner containing the rifling, with a carbon fibre outer layer.

I don't mean we have the FFV751 round, but just trying to say increasing its effectiveness would be easy, no major modification needed.

Hope that don't confuse you.