vara bungas: Nestāstiet nevienam, ko CG apkalpēm māca mūsdienās, vai trenējas strādāt PT slazdu pāros utml. Bet ņemiet vēra apmācībās pieredzējušā US armijas kapteiņa strātēģijas kā pārvarēt bruņutehnikas ERA vai modernāku APS aizsardzību. Šādas aizsargātas tehnikas paliek arvien vairāk un vairāk, tā kā var droši rēķināt, ka ar vienu “naglu” nekad nepietiks, jāimprovizē ar taktiku un jāplāno pietiekamu munīcijas daudzumu.
- Ķert tanka apkalpi “uz muļķi” un neizdarību.
[..]The first possible tactic is to fire a single missile as soon as the target enters the engagement area. The APS is a complicated system and the friction of war can cause malfunctions due to battlefield effects or simple poor maintenance. A vehicle that has an APS might be defeated through the simple malfunctioning of its unit, and targeting it quickly would aim to induce such a malfunction. A keyhole shot from a fire-and-forget system can minimize the risk the commander would assume while potentially destroying the enemy vehicle. In certain environments it may be possible to engage a vulnerable area not covered by the APS, potentially negating its protection.
- Rīkot saskaņotu slazdu ar vairākiem PT ieročiem no dažādiem leņķiem, cerībā, ka APS “uzkārsies”.
If this “trial shot” is not successful, a second tactic is to simultaneously overwhelm the system with multiple missiles. Coordinating multiple antitank teams attacking the same target nearly simultaneously and from different angles is not an easy task. To defeat the Arena system, for example, a commander would have to coordinate multiple missiles arriving from different directions simultaneously. A multidirectional attack could also force the vehicle to expose the rear of the system to one of the antitank teams, enabling their missile to bypass the protection. The Arena has this rear vulnerability, but the Trophy and GL5 do not.
- Ar granātšāvēju vai mīnmetēju netiešo uguni imitēt PT uzbrukumu, kas bojās vai izsmels APS spējas.
A third tactic is to use indirect fire to damage the system or trigger it to fire. Accurate sustained fire from company 60-millimeter mortars or M320 grenade launchers, or calling for fire from higher echelons, could damage the system while preventing enemy direct-fire weapons from engaging. A well-constructed defense could also use preparatory fires to deteriorate APS capabilities before a tank enters the engagement area to such an extent that the “trial shot” can have a high chance of success.
- Lietot tādus ieročus pret tanku, kas neiedarbina APS. Piemēram, bliezt no ložmetēja, lai bojātu APS sensorus. Riskanti.
A fourth tactic is to simply use munitions that are not countered by the APS to engage and damage it. A high-caliber machine gun could fired in an effort to destroy the munition casings or damage the sensors. A rocket could also be fired so that it explodes next to the vehicle instead of being directed at it. An APS might not deem this shot a threat, and a skilled shot—aimed at a nearby wall, for example—could potentially produce enough shrapnel to damage sensors or munition casings and be followed up by a shot that then has a higher probability of success. Direct-fire degradation is a more risky option, but could be planned as a fallback tactic if indirect preparatory fires are not sufficient and the unit is unable to engage with enough simultaneous anti-tank munitions to overwhelm the system.[..]