Armored Cav (1994)

by Clancy, Tom - Nf

  The Javelin Anti-Tank Guided Missile

  When portable anti-tank guided missiles (invented during the 1950s) first appeared in large numbers on the battlefield during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, some “experts” predicted the imminent demise of the tank. Using the wire-guided Soviet AT-3 Sagger (the Russian nickname is Malyutka, meaning “little guy”), Egyptian and Syrian infantrymen knocked out hundreds of Israeli vehicles. Saggers came in a light metal suitcase with two missiles, a fold-out launch rack, and a periscope sight with a reusable control box. Despite its success, the Sagger had many flaws, as first-generation weapons frequently do. For example, the AT-3 was so slow (120 meters/sec) that an alert tank crew could see it coming. Also, it kicked up a big smoke and dust cloud on launch, and had to fly out at least 300 meters before the gunner could get it under control with his little joystick. This done, he had to steer it into the target: It might take half a minute to fly out to the maximum range of 1.8 miles/3 kilometers. As a result of these shortcomings, tankers quickly learned to keep a 360-degree watch on the horizon, and to take along an escort of mechanized infantry to provide suppressive machine-gun fire on anyone who popped up to fire a missile. While the effects of the Sagger were blunted by this change in tactics, a revolution in armored warfare had clearly taken place.

  In the late 1960s, under the Medium Anti-Tank Weapon (MAW) program, the U.S. Army set out to develop a shoulder-fired wire-guided anti-tank guided missile as a long-ranged, highly accurate successor to the famous WWII bazooka. McDonnell Douglas won the MAW competition, and the missile was rushed into production as the M47 Dragon. This second-generation system was not a great success for several reasons. The gunner had to sit in an awkward position, hold his breath during the missile’s twelve-second flight time, and try not to blink. The total weight of the missile, launcher, bipod, and control unit was over 30 1b/13.8 kg, the launcher kicked like a mule when fired, and the awkward bipod and firing position made it hard to track a moving target. Furthermore, its mighty back-blast made it almost impossible to fire from an enclosed space such as a bunker or cave. On the positive side, as long as the gunner kept the target centered in the crosshairs, the missile could reach out 1,200 yards/1,000 meters to accurately deliver its 5.4-1b/2.45-kg warhead (capable of penetrating 24 inches/610 millimeters of steel armor). On the whole, though, the Dragon’s negatives outweighed its positives. Soldiers in the Army hated it, and the Marines preferred to fire their Dragons at enemy bunkers or buildings, which rarely move.

  With the unpleasant experience of Dragon behind them, the Army Missile Command at Huntsville, Alabama, went back to the drawing board for a third-generation anti-tank missile. The winner of the competition for the new missile was the Texas Instruments/Martin Marietta Javelin. Javelin will be the first “fire and forget,” shoulder-launched, anti-tank-guided missile to enter service anywhere in the world. With Javelin, there are no wires to litter the battlefield. The missile has an advanced “imaging infrared seeker” (an imaging computer chip similar to those used in video camcorders) that locks onto the target before firing, thus giving the gunner plenty of time to duck and cover before the doomed tank can fire back. On the downside, a complete Javelin system is heavy: almost fifty pounds, including the missile, the disposable launch tube, and a reusable day/night thermal-imaging sight/telescope/control unit. On the upside, though, the Javelin’s range is around 1.2 miles/2 kilometers, and the gunner can select a direct flight path (at the center of the target) to hit bunkers and soft vehicles, or an arching “top attack” flight path to strike the thin roof armor of a tank. The warhead is a “tandem shaped charge,” with an initial charge to strip away the outer layer of reactive armor (if present) and a main charge to attack the primary armor behind that. Performance figures for the warhead have not been released, but it is doubtful that any vehicle in the world can survive it. As an added bonus, since the Javelin’s “soft launch” rocket motor reduces the recoil and back-blast at launch, the gunner can fire it from a standing, kneeling, sitting, or prone position. This also means that in urban or entrenched combat, Javelin can be fired safely from an enclosed space. Javelin is currently doing well in testing, and is expected to enter service with the Army and Marine Corps in 1995.

  The Stinger Anti-Aircraft Missile

  Ever since the first foot soldier was strafed by an airplane (probably somewhere on the Western Front in Europe around 1916), foot soldiers have dreamed of a weapon that would even the odds. If a plane flies low enough, and enough determined foot soldiers keep firing their rifles into the air, there is a small but finite chance that a bullet (pilots call them “golden BBs”) will get lucky and hit a critical aircraft system or component, as many unlucky American aviators learned over Southeast Asia (1964-1973). Lucky or not, soldiers have always wanted a “magic” weapon that would let them reach out and sweep their aerial oppressors from the sky, and a man-portable SAM was just the thing. This idea seems to have occurred to Russian and American engineers at about the same time, in the 1950s, although the technology took years to develop. It required advances such as very sensitive infrared heat detectors, compact powerful rocket motors, precise miniature mechanical actuators for the steering fins, and finally, rugged miniaturized electronics to tie it all together.

  The first man-portable SAM, the Soviet SA-7 Strela (“Arrow”) missile, was introduced in 1966, and used (without much effect) in combat as early as 1967 by the Egyptians against the Israelis. The U.S. Army introduced its own man-portable SAM, the General Dynamics Redeye missile, in 1968. These first-generation weapons were “tail chasers” (meaning they utilized a lag-pursuit-intercept logic). The infrared seeker of the missile had to “see” the hot metal of the aircraft’s engine exhaust, which usually meant that the target aircraft was already outbound, heading away from the missile shooter. If the target was flying faster than about 500 knots/800 kph, the missile would rarely be able to overtake it. Also, if the line of sight from the missile shooter to the target was too close to the sun, the missile might lock onto that very hot and quite unreachable star. Despite their limitations, these early man-portable SAMs did shoot down some aircraft, and thus had to be considered when planning air operations. Air forces faced with the threat of these heat-seeking missiles quickly developed flare dispensers and infrared jammers (like the ALQ-144 “disco ball”). If the pilot knew there were heat-seekers on his tail, he could drop a few flares, which, being a greater source of infrared energy than his jet exhaust, would deceive the incoming missile. But these were simple measures against a first-generation weapon, and the missile designers were already working on new “smarter” missiles like the Stinger.

  A Stinger missile team of the 82nd Airborne Division in the Saudi desert. The goggles and cloth over the nose and mouth are standard desert gear.

  HUGHES MISSILE SYSTEMS

  The Hughes Stinger missile is a dramatic improvement in man-portable anti-aircraft weaponry. As a starter, Stinger’s seeker head is cooled (using a compressed gas cartridge) before launch, to make it more sensitive to infrared radiation: It can see “hot” sections of the aircraft like the leading edges of the wings and glint off the canopy in addition to the engine exhaust. This means that the Stinger is an “all aspect” SAM, which can engage an airborne target from any direction: inbound, outbound, or crossing. The newest version, the Stinger-RMP, can even detect the “hole” an aircraft makes against the ultraviolet background radiation of the sky. Additionally, a combination of optical filters and computer signal processing gives it great ability to discriminate real targets from decoy flares. The maximum range may be as much as 11 miles/17 kilometers, depending on the speed and altitude of the target.

  The missile itself weighs 23 lb/10 kg, and is about 60 in/152 cm long. A complete Stinger launch system weighs about 34.5 lb/15.7 kg, and includes the missile as well as a disposable launch tube that snaps onto a reusable “gripstock.” The gripstock includes the aiming sight and launch electronics, with a socket for an expendable battery and coola
nt unit. An odd-looking boxy antenna is attached to the side of the launcher and plugged into a portable “IFF interrogator.” This is basically a radio transmitter that sends out a series of coded digital pulses. If the target has a “friendly” IFF transponder that sends back the proper coded reply, you can assume it’s friendly.

  To use the Stinger, you start by removing a protective lens cap over the muzzle of the launch tube and inserting a fresh Battery/Coolant Unit (BCU) into the gripstock. This powers up the missile electronics and cools the seeker head. This done, you track the target through the telescopic sight. When the missile locks onto the target, you will hear a distinctive tone from a built-in speaker, and an indicator light appears in your sight picture. Once the seeker is locked on the target, you take a deep breath and pull the trigger. A small launch motor then ejects the missile from the tube to a safe distance, the guidance fins pop out, and the main rocket motor ignites. The missile accelerates rapidly up to over Mach 2 (1,300 knots/2,080 kph) and begins to intercept the target aircraft. When the Stinger gets to the target, the 6.6-lb/3-kg directional blast/fragmentation warhead (which has both proximity and impact fuses) detonates, spewing fragments towards the target. In the unlikely event that you miss, there is an electronic self-destruct mechanism, so that a live missile won’t come down on friendly heads.

  The Stinger is an excellent example of something that works and works well in the hands of a soldier. In Afghanistan, with minimal training and under very difficult conditions, the mujahidin guerrillas downed over 270 Soviet aircraft with Stingers, scoring an astounding success rate of 79%.

  In addition to the shoulder-fired version used by the Army, Marines, Navy, and Air Force, Stinger can also be mounted on a number of helicopters and fighting vehicles. The twin launcher for helicopters weighs about 123 lb/55.9 kg, including the missiles, control electronics and coolant unit. It provides helicopters like the AH-64, OH-58D, and UH-60 and other Army aircraft with the ability to engage and kill enemy helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft in flight. Another Stinger carrier is the Avenger, developed by Boeing Aerospace and in production for the Army since 1990. The Avenger is a HMMWV with a compact turret mounting a pair of four-round Stinger launchers, a .50-caliber machine gun, and a digital fire-control system with a laser rangefinder and thermal viewer. It has the advantage of a cueing and data-link system. Finally, there is the new version of the M2 Bradley, the Bradley Stinger Vehicle, which is currently under test (as of spring 1994).

  During much of the 1980s and early 1990s, the Army was almost completely dependent upon Stinger for tactical air defense of deployed ground units. Because of the cancellation of the DIVAD air-defense gun system and the gradual phase-out of older anti-aircraft systems (such as Chaparral, a ground-launched version of the famous Sidewinder air-to-air missile, and the 20mm M61 Vulcan cannon on an M113 chassis), the Stinger has been “the only game in town.” With no anti-aircraft system between Stinger and the fixed-site Patriot missiles, it is fortunate that the U.S. Army has not had to face any enemy that presented a serious air threat. Until new systems designed to fill the gaps in the Army’s air-defense umbrella come on-line in a few years, tactical air defense will depend on Stinger, the little missile that can!

  Clothing: BDUs, Helmets, Armor, and Chemical Suits

  What does the well-dressed American soldier wear into battle these days? Well, though you might wonder at the fit of the clothes they wear, the troops the U.S. sends around the world are the best clothed in history. I’m not talking about the various dress or parade uniforms, but battlefield clothing—the stuff designed to survive in the dust of Saudi Arabia, the humidity of Panama, or the day-to-day grind in places like Germany or Korea.

  At the moment, the basic field outfit is called the Battle Dress Uniform or BDU. It comes in a variety of different colors and patterns, as well as different weights depending on the climate. The basic varieties are:• Forest—Used by most of the Army as their basic BDU. These use a forest/olive green as the basic color, with other darker colors in a pattern designed to break up the shape of a human against a background of woods or grass.

  • Desert—This is the “chocolate chip” uniform made so famous by General Schwarzkopf during Desert Storm. These use a tan base fabric with various shades of brown and gray to help personnel “disappear” against the scrub brush and dunes found in the deserts of the world.

  • Arctic—This is the new uniform for operations in mountain and cold weather environments. It is a combination of black, white, and grays that is extremely effective for hiding among the rocks and dirty snow piles so common on winter battlefields. It has an insulating lining and is somewhat heavier than the normal BDUs.

  Soldiers applying camouflage face paint. Note the loose fit of the BDUs (Battle Dress Uniform) and the fabric cover over the “Fritz” Kevlar helmets. The small cuts and elastic band on the helmet cover are for insertion of leafy twigs and branches to provide additional camouflage.

  OFFICIAL U.S. ARMY PHOTO

  All of these uniforms come in a variety of sizes for men and women, and actually fit quite well, though they do tend to look rather baggy. The Army wants them to be comfortable, and not so confining that a soldier cannot jump or climb. In addition, all of the newest BDUs are treated with a waxy substance that resists absorbing chemical agents. There are also specialized coveralls for branches such as Armor and Aviation. Each of these uses Nomex® (a fire-resistant synthetic fiber from Dupont Corporation) as the primary fabric. Army coveralls seem to have dozens of pockets! And over the BDU goes the soldier’s web gear, which is a general-purpose harness for ammunition pouches, first-aid kits, canteens, and the like.

  Boots are almost as important as food to most soldiers. There are a number of different models. Of course, aviators and paratroops have their specific models, but it is the boots used by infantrymen that are so vital to the well-being of an army. Generally, the basic boot is comfortable and wears well enough. But the boots designed for extreme environments have traditionally given American soldiers aching feet or worse. Cold-weather boots have always been a particular problem, though the current version is adequate to the task. The new desert boot, introduced just prior to Desert Storm, proved to be a winner, and is quite popular with the troops in the field.

  Since the human body is relatively fragile compared to bullets and shell fragments, the Army has developed some gear to help the exposed soldier survive. Helmets have been an important feature of the American soldier’s outfit since World War I. Since that time, three different models have been worn. The original “flat dish” model, adopted from the British, was used until mid-1942. During WWII the Army adopted the classic “pot” shape that symbolized the GI until the early 1980s. Then the military broke with tradition and switched from metal to a synthetic called Kevlar (made by Dupont) as the basic helmet material. Kevlar is more than ten times as strong as steel by weight, and much easier to form into ballistically protective shapes. In addition, the Army did extensive research on the most effective shape for protective helmets, and the shape of the old German WWII helmets was found to be the best for preventing head injury in combat. Called the “Fritz” (an obvious reference to its German ancestry) by the troops who use it, it is the standard helmet issued today. The only improvement to the basic “Fritz” helmet is a new type of Kevlar (called Kevlar-29 by Dupont), which reduces the weight of the helmet a bit. This is important, as the weight of the “Fritz” can be hard on your neck muscles. The payoff, though, is the best helmet in the world, as over a decade of combat experience has proven.

  A more recent development in protecting the American soldier has been the adoption of body armor—or “flak jackets,” as they are known. First used in Vietnam, they greatly reduce the likelihood of fatal wounds to the chest and torso. Basically, this is a vest with insertable panels of Kevlar; and it looks very much like a down jacket. Early models were heavy, stiff, and confining to the wearer, but they radically reduced fatalities in units where the soldiers wore t
hem regularly. The newer vests are much lighter and more flexible, though still a bit binding. Nevertheless, all the soldiers I know wear theirs religiously—to avoid what they call “unnecessary perforation”!

  It is strange that today—almost five years after the dismantling of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War—U.S. soldiers have probably never been under a greater danger of attack by chemical weapons. Though the dictators of the world are doing their best to acquire nuclear weapons (the number-one status symbol among dictators), several of them have settled on an older, and somewhat lower-status technology—chemical and biological weapons—as a sort of “poor man’s atomic bomb.” Because Saddam Hussein had actually used his chemical weapons against the Iranians and the Kurdish people, when American forces deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1990, they took the threat of attack by Iraqi chemical weapons extremely seriously.

  Luckily, so had the Department of Defense. In addition to the acquisition of the Fox vehicles from Germany, they had recently introduced a new chemical protective garment for use by U.S. forces. Previously, the standard U.S. chemical suit (more of a rubberized smock actually) was bulky, uncomfortable, and almost impossible to work in for anything more than an hour or two without suffering heat prostration.