Quick responsce, high mobility, customised armed four-wheelers. Useful in very ragged terrains where normal four-wheel drive vehicles have troubles accessing.
Note the high clearence and short base.
Last edited:
PLA Ground Forces news, pics and videos
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Note the high clearence and short base.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
First
UTV vs the Tank you are going to a missile with shorter reach than the long range heavy models. The Tank has the weight to pack more sensors and detection system as would IFV and APC’s as long as we are not talking some third world relic.
This isn’t t the age of operation Barbarossa anymore, where T34 and Tigers would have dozens of shells pinging off the hulls well the crew tries to find their attacker.
The Blast of firing is going to expose the shooter the second they fire. Depending on seeker a laser will likely set off a laser detection system and with the rise of APS the first shot has to make the kill If you are going against armor. depending on cover and tactics used, sensors to counter effects may very. My argument has remained though that this is not a open and shut case with UTV’s packing missiles as the winner. Even a heavy ATGM may not be enough against a modern MBT or heavy IFV/APC.
This whole argument started with the assertion that ATGM have more range. The estimation was then backed by pointing to the 120mm Smoothbore gun listed for the German shell. My counter is that they can but more likely it’s equal to. Equal to as that ranging for the tank shell is the general effective range listing where a good crew may get more from the weapons system. For the ATGM side that range listing is based on a heavier ATGM and in optimum conditions Minimal maneuvering. As change those up and start banking about and the missile will run out of fuel. The weight limits of the UTV as you point out make the choice of missile and the types of sensors. Meaning a man portable model usually a middle weight meaning a missile more likely to be 1.5 km to 3 km range.
Conditions in the field tank being squared off against. In this case based off the shell listed a modern NATO type.
Moving that argument to a APC/IFV the situation changes but if you have a modern type again. It’s a question of making that first shot count because of you miss those class often have there own ATGM. Either from the main armament or infantry.
A bunker is a third situation type where in it’s not mobile and frankly waiting to be blown apart. Although a artillery piece or RPG would likely be cheaper.
Well first because of said limits of the TGC...
UTV vs the Tank you are going to a missile with shorter reach than the long range heavy models. The Tank has the weight to pack more sensors and detection system as would IFV and APC’s as long as we are not talking some third world relic.This isn’t t the age of operation Barbarossa anymore, where T34 and Tigers would have dozens of shells pinging off the hulls well the crew tries to find their attacker.
The Blast of firing is going to expose the shooter the second they fire. Depending on seeker a laser will likely set off a laser detection system and with the rise of APS the first shot has to make the kill If you are going against armor. depending on cover and tactics used, sensors to counter effects may very. My argument has remained though that this is not a open and shut case with UTV’s packing missiles as the winner. Even a heavy ATGM may not be enough against a modern MBT or heavy IFV/APC.
This whole argument started with the assertion that ATGM have more range. The estimation was then backed by pointing to the 120mm Smoothbore gun listed for the German shell. My counter is that they can but more likely it’s equal to. Equal to as that ranging for the tank shell is the general effective range listing where a good crew may get more from the weapons system. For the ATGM side that range listing is based on a heavier ATGM and in optimum conditions Minimal maneuvering. As change those up and start banking about and the missile will run out of fuel. The weight limits of the UTV as you point out make the choice of missile and the types of sensors. Meaning a man portable model usually a middle weight meaning a missile more likely to be 1.5 km to 3 km range.
Conditions in the field tank being squared off against. In this case based off the shell listed a modern NATO type.
Moving that argument to a APC/IFV the situation changes but if you have a modern type again. It’s a question of making that first shot count because of you miss those class often have there own ATGM. Either from the main armament or infantry.
A bunker is a third situation type where in it’s not mobile and frankly waiting to be blown apart. Although a artillery piece or RPG would likely be cheaper.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
This was first displayed at the 2018 Zhuhai Airshow as the TL-4 man-portable fire-and-forget ATGM:
The thing has a range of 6 km. Pretty impressive.
Interesting points - perhaps one thing to keep in mind is this type of highly mobile system with anti-tank/AIFV capability further complicates the highly dynamic nature of modern warfare. One could image attacks from these systems from the rear or side of existing battle formations and/or would give airborne troops a highly mobile and quickly redeployable anti-tank option rather than static antitank teams dug in into fixed emplacements (which are increasingly vulnerable to counter attack).First
Well first because of said limits of the TGC...
This isn’t t the age of operation Barbarossa anymore, where T34 and Tigers would have dozens of shells pinging off the hulls well the crew tries to find their attacker.
The Blast of firing is going to expose the shooter the second they fire. Depending on seeker a laser will likely set off a laser detection system and with the rise of APS the first shot has to make the kill If you are going against armor. depending on cover and tactics used, sensors to counter effects may very. My argument has remained though that this is not a open and shut case with UTV’s packing missiles as the winner. Even a heavy ATGM may not be enough against a modern MBT or heavy IFV/APC.
This whole argument started with the assertion that ATGM have more range. The estimation was then backed by pointing to the 120mm Smoothbore gun listed for the German shell. My counter is that they can but more likely it’s equal to. Equal to as that ranging for the tank shell is the general effective range listing where a good crew may get more from the weapons system. For the ATGM side that range listing is based on a heavier ATGM and in optimum conditions Minimal maneuvering. As change those up and start banking about and the missile will run out of fuel. The weight limits of the UTV as you point out make the choice of missile and the types of sensors. Meaning a man portable model usually a middle weight meaning a missile more likely to be 1.5 km to 3 km range.
Conditions in the field tank being squared off against. In this case based off the shell listed a modern NATO type.
Moving that argument to a APC/IFV the situation changes but if you have a modern type again. It’s a question of making that first shot count because of you miss those class often have there own ATGM. Either from the main armament or infantry.
A bunker is a third situation type where in it’s not mobile and frankly waiting to be blown apart. Although a artillery piece or RPG would likely be cheaper.
The Syrian conflict is a good example of the impact and effectiveness of existing antitank systems such as the TOW, HJ-8A and Kornet etc can have on armoured formations by restricting their capacity to operate freely and holding them at risk when operated by small teams using well coordinated attacks.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
You make it sound like a earth changing system yet that concept has been around for decades. Recoilless system mounted on Jeeps.
What's with the weird exhaust placement?
Equation
Lieutenant General
So that it won't flood the exhaust when the vehicle traveling thru high water.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Not that weird. The Mercedes Benz G Wagon has similar placements when modified with fording kit