Role of towed anti tank gun?

Baibar of Jalat said:

Production is ended. PLA have decided to end thus showing their opinion on these systems. I think it is a little premature to entirely abondon idea. On your point Type 89 gun technology is decades old if you read Sinodefence page you will see how long it took to develop and how 125mm smoothbore was chosen instead.

Whether it is a towed gun with APU making it mobile or put on a vehicle, it should atleast be capable as tank guns such as on Type 99. Plus fire all the same munitions.

Click to expand...

The 120mm fires a one piece ammunition not comparable to the 125 on type-99. I don't see how they can fire the same ammunition.

AT gun is on the way out and quickly replaced by AT GM which is not lacking with PLA force structure. Look up the orbat and you'll see that AT GM is organic to many levels of units.

hallo84 said:

The 120mm fires a one piece ammunition not comparable to the 125 on type-99. I don't see how they can fire the same ammunition.

AT gun is on the way out and quickly replaced by AT GM which is not lacking with PLA force structure. Look up the orbat and you'll see that AT GM is organic to many levels of units.

Click to expand...

I am saying if there is another AT gun developed then it should be based on 125 mm of Type 99 so can shoot same ammo. Sorry if I conveyed message that they were so how compatible with 120mm.

I am not denying the advantages of missiles like I say in first post they are more benefits then costs. However missiles can be jammed and current tech like Arena, Trophy and even the older Drozd can engage missiles. There is room for debate how effective they are.

A little off topic, PLA prefers missiles but have continued to develop AA guns to target helicopters and low flying aircraft why? Not only cost but missiles are more suseptible to be jammed.

Baibar of Jalat said:

I am saying if there is another AT gun developed then it should be based on 125 mm of Type 99 so can shoot same ammo. Sorry if I conveyed message that they were so how compatible with 120mm.

I am not denying the advantages of missiles like I say in first post they are more benefits then costs. However missiles can be jammed and current tech like Arena, Trophy and even the older Drozd can engage missiles. There is room for debate how effective they are.

A little off topic, PLA prefers missiles but have continued to develop AA guns to target helicopters and low flying aircraft why? Not only cost but missiles are more suseptible to be jammed.

Click to expand...

That is because guns are still useful against aircraft. Anti-tank guns have limited uses compared to the more effective and useful recoilless rifle, which can pack the same punch as a anti-tank gun, but in a smaller and more portable package.

Baibar of Jalat said:

I am saying if there is another AT gun developed then it should be based on 125 mm of Type 99 so can shoot same ammo. Sorry if I conveyed message that they were so how compatible with 120mm.

I am not denying the advantages of missiles like I say in first post they are more benefits then costs. However missiles can be jammed and current tech like Arena, Trophy and even the older Drozd can engage missiles. There is room for debate how effective they are.

A little off topic, PLA prefers missiles but have continued to develop AA guns to target helicopters and low flying aircraft why? Not only cost but missiles are more suseptible to be jammed.

Click to expand...

You can't jam a man in the loop wire guided missile and newer ones can be made to attack from top down.

Portability is what's lacking in dedicated AT guns. With the change in PLA doctrine with maneuvre network centric mechID formation. I don't see how AT guns can keep up.

AAA guns are still an effective weapon against low flying aircraft considering they are employed in layered defense.

The AA guns are different from AT guns as AAA can afford to be static while AT guns can no longer fit the PLA doctrine.

hallo84 said:

You can't jam a man in the loop wire guided missile and newer ones can be made to attack from top down.

Portability is what's lacking in dedicated AT guns. With the change in PLA doctrine with maneuvre network centric mechID formation. I don't see how AT guns can keep up.

AAA guns are still an effective weapon against low flying aircraft considering they are employed in layered defense.

The AA guns are different from AT guns as AAA can afford to be static while AT guns can no longer fit the PLA doctrine.

Click to expand...

Arena, Trophy and others claim to shoot down missiles. If they are successful then current missiles are not as effective. Maybe two mssiles at tandem be lauched, to overcome the system?

Baibar of Jalat said:

Arena, Trophy and others claim to shoot down missiles. If they are successful then current missiles are not as effective. Maybe two mssiles at tandem be lauched, to overcome the system?

Click to expand...

You still don't get it. If PLA want to focus on Active defense by bring the fight to the enemy then how can you fit a component that is purely for defense?

AT guns can not keep up with mech ID movements. If you take the case of new 127th light mechanized infantry division then even a tank battalion does not fit their requirement as it is too slow.

The only way a AT can be useful now is on wheel or tracked chassis. Even then they are not used for their traditional role of AT but rather as direct assault guns in support of the infantry.

What I don't understand is why PLA still use 100mm canon vs the 105mm assault guns. Could be that AT is still organized under artillery div and not organic to infantry div.

Active defense for tanks is yet to be combat proven. I wouldn't take sales pitches too seriously and rule out missiles all together. Or else why would US, Europe and china keep developing newer version of the same ATGM missiles?

I think the old towed anti-tank gun classification is pretty obsolete. These days towed guns are indirect-fire artillery and self-propelled AT guns are no longer real tank destroyers. The US Army, for example, is calling their Strykers armed with 105mm gun "Mobile Gun System". PLA's PTL02 probably serves the same role.

I do agree that it's kinda oxymoron to continue using old 100mm gun when they could standardize on 105mm L7 or L7-copies. I'd like to see small, remote-controlled turrets with autoloader, and maybe couple of ATGM's in a box launcher to the side.

Mobile gun platforms on 6 or 8-wheeled chassis has its own place in light mechanized infantry, rapid deployment, and road/air-transportable. Heavy APC's and MBT's require tank carriers or transport by rail, versus 6 or 8-wheeled vehicles can be driven on regular roads without damaging it.

I donno where a towed anti-tank gun would fit, maybe reserve/militia units deployed in defensive positions? It doesn't seem to fit well in a modern army.

I think in PLA organizations, AT guns are part of Artillery units. It's designed to provide artillery units their own organic anti-tank capability to defend against enemy armor units which slipped through the front line. They are not intended for offensive combat roles.

Another reason PLA is keeping AT guns is because missiles can be defeated, but once an AT shell is on its way, you can only hope it misses or the armor is thick enough.

raytheon's quick kill ADS achieve multiply kill.aside from anti tank missile,mortal round,HEAT or HE rd fired from tank's gun.reprot able to kill high velocity kinetic round.
but raytheon also developing miniture jammer base ,small enough to fit inside ATGM.

xuansu said:

I think in PLA organizations, AT guns are part of Artillery units. It's designed to provide artillery units their own organic anti-tank capability to defend against enemy armor units which slipped through the front line. They are not intended for offensive combat roles.

Another reason PLA is keeping AT guns is because missiles can be defeated, but once an AT shell is on its way, you can only hope it misses or the armor is thick enough.

Click to expand...

The same can be said for recoilless rifles, such as the Carl Gustav.

At the effective ranges an AT gun would be useful at, a recoilless rifle or other forms of hand held AT weapons would also be useful. They are more mobile than a AT gun, which would require a prime mover to redeploy, and more useful.