akamcfly wrote: In reply to T.J.: Even something like the phalanx targeting (or paint the target with a laser) system guiding a .50 cal or two would be the E36 M3. Something that could be mounted to a humvee or similar purpose wheeled vehicle. I'm sure something could be bodged together for defending against such "Hail Mary" tactics.
Based on the dust flying around the truck- it was under a hail of gunfire. It still got farther than I would have expected.
WOW Really Paul? wrote: The current correct answer is overwhelming fire, think they have anything mobile that can hold mounted m61's?
Yes. It's called the M163.
alfadriver wrote:Keith Tanner wrote: I would think a well-located trench would also be useful if you're trying to fortify a fixed location against this kind of attack.Good for defense, bad for offense- since you can't move the trench.
You can have a drawbridge Or even just a series of crossing points that would funnel any attackers into a killzone.
In reply to Will:
That driver is going to need some serious ear protection.
Will wrote:WOW Really Paul? wrote: The current correct answer is overwhelming fire, think they have anything mobile that can hold mounted m61's?Yes. It's called the M163.
There was a towed version as well, the M167 (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/M167-Vulcan.jpg). Neither still exists in the current US inventory. I was an M167 gunner in the first gulf war, spent many, many hours with that thing. Quite a piece of kit.
Don't underestimate the capability of a well-wielded M60 either. Only 7.62mm, but enough punch to do some real damage to an un-armored target at decent range.
"Paging Mr. Dillon... Mr. Mike Dillon to the white courtesy phone..."
The Javelin is usually the weapon of choice for taking out vehicles and damaging armored vehicles. At $75,000+ a round the use of them is not advocated to be liberal. Overwhelming small arms fire is really the only choice in most situations or a few really well placed shots could do the job. Really what you want is a good JTAC and some assets in the air. If you're feeling squirly maybe an amazing FISTER who can control arty like a boss.
wearymicrobe wrote: What you need is a 4 bore rifle aimed at a engine block. That will stop just about anything and is cheap and cheerful at least for the military. But with tech, and base safety, being what it is you would see them approach from far enough away that you could riddle them with 50 cal before they even got in range to do any damage.
In the last 9 years (6 yrs tacp/jtac) of deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq, most ecp's have a line, cross that line and ma duece will be having a talk with you.
T.J. wrote: I wondered why there was not a land based version of the Phalanx CIWS, but according to the linked wikipedia page, there is a land-based version used for missile defense called C-RAM and the Italian army has their own version that they call DRACO and can be used against ground targets. 20mm projectiles fired at 75 rounds per second will stop a truck in no time. I'm sure the cost is way more than just using some 50 cals.
When they berkeleying work 
A good offense against a incoming suicide truck is an attentive ah64 pilot with a skilled aerial gunner on the 30mm.
WOW Really Paul? wrote: In reply to Wall-e: The a-10's & AC130's pretty much put an end to their parades....
My two favorite aircraft to see in action. I recently took a flight in a kc-135 and we were refueling A10's on our way. I was able to get some amazing shots and vids of an ar.
yupididit wrote:wearymicrobe wrote: What you need is a 4 bore rifle aimed at a engine block. That will stop just about anything and is cheap and cheerful at least for the military. But with tech, and base safety, being what it is you would see them approach from far enough away that you could riddle them with 50 cal before they even got in range to do any damage.In the last 9 years (6 yrs tacp/jtac) of deploying to Afghanistan and Iraq, most ecp's have a line, cross that line and ma duece will be having a talk with you.
Not recently. SecFos ROEs are ridiculous now. When it boils down to it, security forces can only fire if fired upon in deployed locations now which.....well no comment.
Well, obviously before that red line there's white, green, yellow line they have to cross. Those lines are metaphor for ROE.
I was on the bad end of a failed car bomb at an ecp once. Talk about luck.
alfadriver wrote: Is there a smaller (also less expensive, easy to carry) guided weapon that would work for these smaller and quicker targets?
To directly answer your question, no. For 2 main reasons.
1, when you need an anti-tank missile, and tiny anti-isis truck missile isn't going to get the job done. The reverse however, works just fine. Plus, by the time a new weapon got through the political landscape of procurement, who knows what threats our troops maybe facing?
B, smaller boom does not necessarily equal cheaper weapon. The major cost factor in guided weapons in not lethality. We've been building more efficient and cheaper means of erasing things from existence ever since the Chinese discovered gun powder (and maybe even before then). But a guided munition in the modern battlefield has to be reliable, easy to operate, and have massive jamming/hacking resistance. Those are the reasons missiles cost so much. You want that missile to fire when you squeeze the trigger, not have to download an iOS update first or burst into flames in the tube. And you REALLY don't want some one to hack the guidance signal and point it back at your own forces.
So the military isn't going to spend money on purchasing a weapon system, training operators in how to use it, and maintain stockpiles for possibly decades on such a specialized piece of equipment whose role is able to be undertaken by a not too much more expensive and proven general purpose guided munition.
Massive amount of bullets still rules for cheapness though.
KyAllroad wrote: http://www.defensereview.com/spike-shoulder-launched-fire-and-forget-guided-missile-kills-fast-moving-threats/ SPIKE costs 10 grand per shot.
Sounds awful cheap compared to the lives of our service members
yupididit wrote: My two favorite aircraft to see in action. I recently took a flight in a kc-135 and we were refueling A10's on our way. I was able to get some amazing shots and vids of an ar.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote:alfadriver wrote: Is there a smaller (also less expensive, easy to carry) guided weapon that would work for these smaller and quicker targets?1, when you need an anti-tank missile, and tiny anti-isis truck missile isn't going to get the job done. The reverse however, works just fine. Plus, by the time a new weapon got through the political landscape of procurement, who knows what threats our troops maybe facing?
Playing devil's advocate, if the anti-tank missile weighs 100 pounds and takes 2 guys to carry and the anti-truck missile weighs 30 pounds and one guy can carry two of them, then that's a win. Lack of vehicle armor means smaller warhead, means less weight to push, combined with shorter range required (don't need to blow up a truck that's 5 miles away) means much smaller rocket motor, etc etc.
In reply to codrus: An AT-4 has plenty of bang and is easily light enough. What it lacks is a targeting system, being essentially a "dumb" rocket.
I don't know what it would do to the unit cost to make them laser homing, then you just need your buddy to "paint" the target while you shoot in it's general direction.
Streetwiseguy wrote: One of these. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hm4nva8v_FY Yes, I know its a stupid movie...but I like it.
Reminds me of this scene from Dredd...
I was watching a video on the invasion of Iraq. Apparently, once the insurgents started using truck/car bombs, the weapon of choice was the main gun on the Abrams using a sabot round. The fire control computer was up to the task even on moving vehicles and a shot through the engine block would send a jet of liquid metal through the vehicle interior which pretty much took care of the operators and any explosives. There was some pretty impressive/horrific video.
codrus wrote:ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote:Playing devil's advocate, if the anti-tank missile weighs 100 pounds and takes 2 guys to carry and the anti-truck missile weighs 30 pounds and one guy can carry two of them, then that's a win. Lack of vehicle armor means smaller warhead, means less weight to push, combined with shorter range required (don't need to blow up a truck that's 5 miles away) means much smaller rocket motor, etc etc.alfadriver wrote: Is there a smaller (also less expensive, easy to carry) guided weapon that would work for these smaller and quicker targets?1, when you need an anti-tank missile, and tiny anti-isis truck missile isn't going to get the job done. The reverse however, works just fine. Plus, by the time a new weapon got through the political landscape of procurement, who knows what threats our troops maybe facing?
Sure, its easier to set up and carry. But its only a win in the current operating environment. If ISIS suddenly acquires armored vehicles or a reformed Putin lead Russian bear drops tanks in Kabul, then its a solid fail, because your anti-tank missile guys are lugging around a pair of puny little missile that bounce off anything stronger than a Toyota Tacoma frame. I for one, wouldn't want to be the guy in the field wishing we hadn't given up our anti-tank missiles to save a few pennies, so I won't advocate it for our armed forces either.
And if you are fielding them alongside each other, then you are needlessly weighing down personnel with unnecessary equipment, and it definitely won't be cheaper that way.
In reply to ThunderCougarFalconGoat:
Hope there's some CAS near by. Usually, they're just a call away haha.
Javelin wrote:yupididit wrote: My two favorite aircraft to see in action. I recently took a flight in a kc-135 and we were refueling A10's on our way. I was able to get some amazing shots and vids of an ar.I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I may upload some. You have gmail I'll send you a link to my Google Drive
In reply to yupididit:
Absolutely, but that wasn't really the question. And air support is the exact opposite of cheap 
alfadriver wrote: I know we have shoulder fired guided weapons for tanks, which seem to be a big overkill for a smaller one. Is there a smaller (also less expensive, easy to carry) guided weapon that would work for these smaller and quicker targets?
This is almost exactly what .50 BMG was invented for. It was meant as an anti-tank round, before tanks got crazy good at being tanks. Still useful as an anti-materiel round.
ThunderCougarFalconGoat wrote: In reply to yupididit: Absolutely, but that wasn't really the question. And air support is the exact opposite of cheap
Bullets are cheap. That's about where it ends. No smart weapon is cheap. The threat proposed in this thread isn't frequent or huge enough to warrent such an investment in arms to create an anti truck guided weapons. CAS is cheaper than developing something compact and guided that isn't a pain in the dick to carry around with your other 80lbs in gear 
Perhaps Tony Stark can help
You'll need to log in to post.
