SPG-9 in Territorial Defense, which is the modern function of a jet-free department
2s14.blogspot.com 8 years ago
Recently, information has appeared in circulation that the Territorial Defence Army is to receive dense anti-tank grenade launchers from the mobilization depots SPG-9. It is well known that OT has been most likely the most media formation in the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland for the last 2 years. A peculiar controversy here is the fact that it is the "territorial" that receive the latest weapons and equipment, which is more needed for professional units. Equally loud is that OT, alternatively than linear units, will be 1 of the formations investigating MSBS-5.56K automatic carbines. Therefore, it may be amazing for any that SPG-9 will be sent to WOT. Why is that? Well, the Polish Army lacks effective anti-tank weapons - RPG-7 They're approaching the end of resurses and deficiency modern ammunition, Tiny It is already a complete monument that does not belong to the modern battlefield, Spike'It's not enough, though. Carle Gustafy are (likely) in the air cavalry. In practice, however, accumulation grenades for SPG-9 are minimally superior to those for RPG-7, due to the fact that their penetration is 300-400 mm RHA against about 300 mm for PG-7 / PG-7W. However, it is inactive besides tiny a value to seriously endanger Russian tanks.
B-10 recoil-free cannon - predecessor SPG-9
Despite this, SPG-9 (and full non-rejective guns) are a weapon perfect for second-hand units to include Territorial Defense. I fishy that among you there will be any who will claim that SPG-9 is simply a monument that should go to the museum, but the fact is that it is 1 of the youngest developed types of jet-free department - the only non-rejective department developed after the premiere of the first ppk from SACLOS (Fagot, TOW, MILAN), is Italian Folgore. However, before I proceed to the argument, I would point out that all CG varieties are classified as average anti-tank grenade launchers, and with non-return guns they have a common method of action. So no 1 can complain that I won't include them here. First of all, the top advantage of the jet-free cannon is the propellity of missiles to them in relation to the mass of the full set. In the case of SPG-9, while cumulative missiles are only up to 1,300 m in range, shrapnel-burst missiles can fly up to 4500 m in scope (in the case of Bulgarian OG-9BG up to 7500 m), which distinguishes them importantly from "real" dense anti-tank grenade launchers specified as RPG-29, where maximum burden capacity does not exceed 1000 m. With a weight of almost 60 kg, the SPG is so an perfect weapon of support for the company level, which can additionally support the fire of the Kal infantry mortar. 60 or 81 / 82 mm, which for somewhat armed units can be of large importance. In the case of the Polish Army, specified units include 100% "red berets" and "territorials". The landing in our army is primarily limited by the capabilities of our transport aircraft - The breeze is not suitable for the carriage of vehicles, the C-295M will only accommodate vehicles of little than 170 cm (i.e. Honkers and quads) and the Herculeses are not adequate to transport more trucks. The SPG-9s are perfect here, due to the fact that they can be pulled both by operation of guns and transported by light vehicles, even by quads. As a result, the ability to spread specified a division of artillery is not limited by means of air transport. I besides fishy that logistics drones will besides be suitable for transport tasks in the future.
In this case, the function of the artillery tractor is 300 km Yamaha Grizzly
And that's where the service came in.
However, the Territorial defence is intended to be a somewhat armed unit solely for high-level decision-making reasons, although its tasks seem to contradict this. The allocation of towed kal mortars was abandoned. 98 and 120 mm and the acquisition of towed guns, which would be essential to make a well-armed light infantry motorized. For this task, OT has not been limited to protecting crucial strategical facilities in the back of its own front, where light weapons would be enough. In general, in the case of OT transport capabilities, SPG-9 can be extended to include off-road cars and I think it is not essential to compose that they are 1 of the most popular types of weapons utilized on "technicals" in Africa and the mediate East. Another advantage of SPG-9 is simply a wide scope of ammunition available for it. In addition to cumulative (PG-9xxx) and fracturing (OG-9xxx) missiles, thermobaric and cumulative missiles with tandem head are besides offered on the market. However, while the capabilities of anti-tank missiles are limited to the elimination of armoured infantry vehicles and older tanks (300-400 mm RHA for a single cumulative head and 400 mm RHA + ERA for a tandem accumulation head), so much that shrapnel-storming and thermobaric missiles are inactive useful in combating the reinforcements and infantry of the opponent. Moreover, the tiny size of this jet-free cannon allows them to be easy dug. In the case of positioning activities, they become very available to act as ft artillery, as was previously the case in military history. On the another hand, it is not possible to effectively mask these guns due to their own nature, and in addition, the rocket drive utilized in missiles prevents these guns from masking in smaller enclosed spaces. And what would the future of a jet-free cannon look like? First of all, it is theoretically unprofitable to make a successor, due to the fact that jet-free guns for about 50 years have been so niche in the arms marketplace that it would be hard to find a buyer willing to adapt them to their own needs. It is so essential both to continuously modernise existing SPG-9 and to make a production line for fresh copies. The modernisation of these departments should take place in 3 directions: - expanding their capacity during night activities - increase their effectiveness through fresh ammunition - expanding their capacity by reducing weight In the first subject, the aim is to make a fire control strategy with night sights or to adapt 1 from a classical anti-tank grenade launcher (e.g. RGW 90). As for ammunition, I believe that SPG-9 capabilities can be increased if it is developed with HEMP or HEAT/HASH programmable ammunition. In the first case, the effectiveness of the recoil-free guns against surviving force will be increased, and in the second case a unified ammunition could be developed to combat both reinforced and somewhat armoured objects. Another anticipation is to make large supercaliber anti-tank grenades (caliber approx. 150 mm or more) to combat besides modern armored vehicles. However, they would be of small importance (probably up to 500-600 m), the process of reloading them would be cumbersome and dangerous for cannon handling, and the transport of these grenades would be greatly hampered by their weight. However, lowering the mass of the non-rejective cannon would be possible by replacing parts of the metallic elements with polymeric elements.
For all these reasons, I believe that despite its age, SPG-9 is inactive waiting for a bright future, although not as an anti-tank weapon, but mainly as a means of fire support. Its tiny weight, ease of transport and training let for usage in both units secondary and rear, as well as high-speed craft (especially air force and air landing units), where heavier artillery equipment is either impossible to apply or simply unnecessary. In general, non-rejective guns can inactive find their niche as an addition to infantry mortars at a scope greater than anti-tank grenade launchers and lower operating costs from guided anti-tank missiles.
