What's new

How the U.S. Military Became a Tank-Killing Machine

nahtanbob

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Sep 24, 2018
Messages
14,105
Reaction score
-57
Country
United States
Location
United States
Lava_Viper_150529-M-ZQ619-147.jpg


Washington did not always have Javelin missiles. Here is the story.
by Charlie Gao

In the 1970s, the United States produced what might be considered one of the worst anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) of all time. The M47 Dragon was slow, quirky and took forever to reach its target.

But less than twenty-five years later, the United States produced one of the best anti-tank missiles in the world, the Javelin. How did the United States manage to turn around its infantry anti-tank program so quickly?

Infantry anti-tank weapons were a relatively weak area of the U.S. military throughout most of the Cold War. While the BGM-71 TOW was an excellent vehicle-mounted ATGM for its time, it was not readily infantry-mobile. The tripod, launch unit, and sight for the TOW weigh in at more than 200 pounds.

Lighter anti-tank duties fell to the M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapon rocket launcher, M47 Dragon light ATGM and the M67 90mm recoilless rifle. The M47 Dragon began to replace the M67 after its adoption in 1975, but the M67 stuck around in specialized roles.

But what made the M47 Dragon bad?


The primary reason is the Dragon’s propulsion system. Instead of a simple arrangement of a continuous burn rocket motor and fins, the M67 Dragon featured many rings of tiny rocket engines which “popped” off in short bursts to adjust the missile’s flight path.

This lead to a myriad of downsides. The missile’s guidance was erratic, with the missile jumping around in flight as the bursts fired off.


The bursts were loud and distinctive—they would warn a target that a Dragon had been fired and was closing on them.

Finally, in certain environmental conditions, the bursts could leave a trail of smoke puffs , which could give away the position of the gunner.

The burst-engine method didn’t even make the missile fast. In fact, it was slower than most of its counterparts, taking over eleven seconds to reach its effective range of 1 kilometer out.

Guidance itself was accomplished by tracking an infrared flare on the rear of the missile, similar to the TOW. This meant that the Dragon could be defeated by the Soviet and Russian Shtora active protection system.

The Dragon was usable at night, but doing so required an additional night-sight that needed even more equipment. Canisters of freon were used to cool the night sight’s sensors, but this only was effective for two hours.

The United States would upgrade the M47 Dragon into the Dragon II and Super Dragon, which boosted the range and penetrating power of the missile. But these upgrades didn’t solve the primary flaw of the Dragon, the propulsion system.

By the 1980s, the United States was looking into replacing the Dragon. The program was initially called the Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System–Medium. (AAWS-M)

After a competitive process that ruled out a laser-beam riding missile and a fiber-optic link missile (similar to the Israeli Spike), the Texas Instruments entry won the contract and began developing the Javelin.

Practically every aspect of the Javelin builds upon a flaw of the M47 Dragon.

Gone is the old night sight that required bottles of coolant. A self-cooling day/night thermal sight with multiple modes of zoom is a key part of the Javelin, the Command Launch Unit.

The missile itself has a thermal seeker as well, as opposed to being simply controlled by the firing post. This makes it significantly more resistant to Shtora-style active protection systems.

The long delay between missile launch and impact for the Dragon was likely a large factor that led to the selection of the Javelin for AAWS-M. The Javelin is a fire-and-forget missile, which means that the gunner can immediately move after firing, cutting out the missile flight time factor almost completely with regards to the crew repositioning.

The top-attack trajectory and conventional rocket engine greatly reduce the chances that an enemy tank will see or hear a Javelin launch, compared to a Dragon launch.

Overall, the Javelin was better than the Dragon in practically every way. In contrast to the Dragon, which was only exported to a handful of countries, the Javelin has been a major success worldwide (despite its cost) with major sales to the UK, France, and Australia.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

 
.
Lava_Viper_150529-M-ZQ619-147.jpg


Washington did not always have Javelin missiles. Here is the story.
by Charlie Gao

In the 1970s, the United States produced what might be considered one of the worst anti-tank guided missiles (ATGM) of all time. The M47 Dragon was slow, quirky and took forever to reach its target.

But less than twenty-five years later, the United States produced one of the best anti-tank missiles in the world, the Javelin. How did the United States manage to turn around its infantry anti-tank program so quickly?

Infantry anti-tank weapons were a relatively weak area of the U.S. military throughout most of the Cold War. While the BGM-71 TOW was an excellent vehicle-mounted ATGM for its time, it was not readily infantry-mobile. The tripod, launch unit, and sight for the TOW weigh in at more than 200 pounds.

Lighter anti-tank duties fell to the M72 Light Anti-Tank Weapon rocket launcher, M47 Dragon light ATGM and the M67 90mm recoilless rifle. The M47 Dragon began to replace the M67 after its adoption in 1975, but the M67 stuck around in specialized roles.

But what made the M47 Dragon bad?


The primary reason is the Dragon’s propulsion system. Instead of a simple arrangement of a continuous burn rocket motor and fins, the M67 Dragon featured many rings of tiny rocket engines which “popped” off in short bursts to adjust the missile’s flight path.

This lead to a myriad of downsides. The missile’s guidance was erratic, with the missile jumping around in flight as the bursts fired off.


The bursts were loud and distinctive—they would warn a target that a Dragon had been fired and was closing on them.

Finally, in certain environmental conditions, the bursts could leave a trail of smoke puffs , which could give away the position of the gunner.

The burst-engine method didn’t even make the missile fast. In fact, it was slower than most of its counterparts, taking over eleven seconds to reach its effective range of 1 kilometer out.

Guidance itself was accomplished by tracking an infrared flare on the rear of the missile, similar to the TOW. This meant that the Dragon could be defeated by the Soviet and Russian Shtora active protection system.

The Dragon was usable at night, but doing so required an additional night-sight that needed even more equipment. Canisters of freon were used to cool the night sight’s sensors, but this only was effective for two hours.

The United States would upgrade the M47 Dragon into the Dragon II and Super Dragon, which boosted the range and penetrating power of the missile. But these upgrades didn’t solve the primary flaw of the Dragon, the propulsion system.

By the 1980s, the United States was looking into replacing the Dragon. The program was initially called the Advanced Anti-Tank Weapon System–Medium. (AAWS-M)

After a competitive process that ruled out a laser-beam riding missile and a fiber-optic link missile (similar to the Israeli Spike), the Texas Instruments entry won the contract and began developing the Javelin.

Practically every aspect of the Javelin builds upon a flaw of the M47 Dragon.

Gone is the old night sight that required bottles of coolant. A self-cooling day/night thermal sight with multiple modes of zoom is a key part of the Javelin, the Command Launch Unit.

The missile itself has a thermal seeker as well, as opposed to being simply controlled by the firing post. This makes it significantly more resistant to Shtora-style active protection systems.

The long delay between missile launch and impact for the Dragon was likely a large factor that led to the selection of the Javelin for AAWS-M. The Javelin is a fire-and-forget missile, which means that the gunner can immediately move after firing, cutting out the missile flight time factor almost completely with regards to the crew repositioning.

The top-attack trajectory and conventional rocket engine greatly reduce the chances that an enemy tank will see or hear a Javelin launch, compared to a Dragon launch.

Overall, the Javelin was better than the Dragon in practically every way. In contrast to the Dragon, which was only exported to a handful of countries, the Javelin has been a major success worldwide (despite its cost) with major sales to the UK, France, and Australia.

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national-security issues.

great piece of weapon
 
.
Yeah the Javelin has been the best anti-tank weapon since introduced and it seems it will stay that way for at least a decade if not more,especially if US keeps improving it.Only negative thing that i can think of is it's price lol.
 
.
Yeah the Javelin has been the best anti-tank weapon since introduced and it seems it will stay that way for at least a decade if not more,especially if US keeps improving it.Only negative thing that i can think of is it's price lol.

it is expensive at $78000
 
.
it is expensive at $78000

Yup,missile alone.The launcher was at least twice that or more if i remember correctly,then there are the training costs for the soldiers who will use it,which are also high...So not really a system for small or poor countries.
Sooner or later though some other country will develop something similar(probably a bit less effective and accurate)for a smaller price.My bet would be China,considering the Russians seem happy with their Kornets for now.
 
.
Javelin is very expensive, slow and has a range of only 2.5km.

Russian Kornet-EM are much cheaper (about 6x cheaper if you compare launcher + missile!) and with a much better range of 8-10km. Admittedly less mobile (needs a tripod launcher I think), but also has better penetrative power than the javelin.
 
Last edited:
.
Javelin is very expensive, slow and has a range of only 2.5km.

Russian Kornet-EM are much cheaper (about 6x cheaper if you compare launcher + missile!) and with a much better range of 8-10km. Admittedly less mobile (needs a tripod launcher I think), but also has better penetrative power than the javelin.

Current Javelin range is almost 5 km.More then enough for shoulder launched ATGM supporting infantry.Not to mention the top attack ability and fire and forget mode.

https://web.archive.org/web/2016081...ets-beyond-current-maximum-range-during-tests
 
.
Yup,missile alone.The launcher was at least twice that or more if i remember correctly,then there are the training costs for the soldiers who will use it,which are also high...So not really a system for small or poor countries.
Sooner or later though some other country will develop something similar(probably a bit less effective and accurate)for a smaller price.My bet would be China,considering the Russians seem happy with their Kornets for now.
the launcher is quoted for $126,000

Javelin is very expensive, slow and has a range of only 2.5km.

Russian Kornet-EM are much cheaper (about 6x cheaper if you compare launcher + missile!) and with a much better range of 8-10km. Admittedly less mobile (needs a tripod launcher I think), but also has better penetrative power than the javelin.

javelin has a fire and forget mechanism which is handy
 
.
Current Javelin range is almost 5 km.More then enough for shoulder launched ATGM supporting infantry.Not to mention the top attack ability and fire and forget mode.

https://web.archive.org/web/2016081...ets-beyond-current-maximum-range-during-tests
i think official range is still 2.5km, just some tests it was successfully used beyond that range in perfect conditions.

javelin has a fire and forget mechanism which is handy
true, and it's man portable (i.e. doesn't need a tripod). but kornet-em is also fire and forget and has better penetrative power (and much much power).
 
.
Javelin is very expensive, slow and has a range of only 2.5km.

Russian Kornet-EM are much cheaper (about 6x cheaper if you compare launcher + missile!) and with a much better range of 8-10km. Admittedly less mobile (needs a tripod launcher I think), but also has better penetrative power than the javelin.

Kornet is a crew serve weapon (weight just below 30 Kgs without Command Module and Tripod, 63 with them) it is not the same class as Javelin (which is a Man-Portable system, weight between 16, Block 2 with lightweight CLU, to 20Kgs) If you want to compare Kornet, you probably need to compare it with TOW, instead of Javelin

And Javelin Block 2 have an official maximum range of 5km, with both live fire and Combat result pit them anywhere between 1.6 to 4.3 km range. Block 0/1 reported range are 2.5km.
 
Last edited:
.
i think official range is still 2.5km, just some tests it was successfully used beyond that range in perfect conditions.


true, and it's man portable (i.e. doesn't need a tripod). but kornet-em is also fire and forget and has better penetrative power (and much much power).

i do not know what kornet-em is. at least some of the kornet models do not have the fire and forget mechanism
 
.
i do not know what kornet-em is. at least some of the kornet models do not have the fire and forget mechanism

It's a modernized version much harder to jam and yeah it seems like it does have fire and forget.However as someone already pointed out earlier it isn't man portable but crew served and as such doesn't really compare to the Javelin.
 
.
Yeah the Javelin has been the best anti-tank weapon since introduced and it seems it will stay that way for at least a decade if not more,especially if US keeps improving it.Only negative thing that i can think of is it's price lol.

Israeli Spikes are much superior and retain top attack capability at ranges of 30kms.
 
.
Israeli Spikes are much superior and retain top attack capability at ranges of 30kms.

I assume you are talking about Spike ER or Spike NLOS.The first one is vehicle and helicopter launched only and the second one with it's 80+ kilograms isn't really a man portable weapon,so we are comparing apples and oranges here.
 
.
I assume you are talking about Spike ER or Spike NLOS.The first one is vehicle and helicopter launched only and the second one with it's 80+ kilograms isn't really a man portable weapon,so we are comparing apples and oranges here.

Does Spike have a man portable variant ??
 
.
Back
Top Bottom