The lance and shield, again and again... While modern armored vehicles are beginning to be equipped with soft-kill protection systems, such as jammers and infrared smoke bombs, and hard-kill systems, responsible for intercepting and destroying missiles, rockets and shells aimed at them, Russian engineers have already developed the parade, with anti-tank weapons designed to exploit the current weakness of this equipment, their inability to respond to saturating attacks.
According to an article from theTass Agency, two systems are designed with this particular perspective: the RPG30 rocket launcher and the Kornet EM missile. Knowing that the hard kill systems in service in NATO, such as the Israeli Trophy system equipping US Army armored vehicles, can only intercept one vector at a time, the RPG30 simultaneously sends 2 rockets, one serving decoy and responsible for triggering the protection systems, leaving free path for the second, which carries the military load.
The principle is the same with the Kornet EM anti-tank missile, designed to be able to simultaneously guide 2 missiles using a single laser beam. Here again, the objective is to force the hard-kill protection system to intercept the first missile, so as to let the second reach the target.
Obviously, the protection and survivability of armored vehicles cannot be reduced to a simple arithmetic equation. For example, Kornets are sensitive to smokescreens masking the target's infrared and visible signature, as well as jamming lasers, intended to decoy the missile. The reduced range of RPGs limits their use to close urban type combat, an area in which NATO armor has been greatly improved, so as to have the necessary reactivity to destroy the launcher before it has the possibility of firing. Finally, modern armored vehicles are mainly equipped with armor combining passive armor protection, sometimes composite, and active protection systems, intended to counter anti-tank weapons, in particular single or double hollow charges, ensuring ultimate protection if the systems protection was not sufficient.
Above all, modern armored vehicles interact much better than in the past with support forces, such as infantry, artillery, engineers or air support, thanks to efficient communication systems. The protection of armored vehicles is therefore ensured by the coordination of forces, each being responsible for covering a segment of vulnerability, and exploiting given weaknesses. Therefore, the “dry” comparison of one system to another is very often artificial, and without much connection with reality.
Without revolutionizing the principles of tank combat, new technologies, however, reduce reaction times and increase engagement distances. Soon, humans, limited in their perception and reaction speed, will no longer be able to control and assimilate this multitude of information. Artificial Intelligence will then ensure the operational management of the systems, with humans ensuring, for their part, tactical control and overall coordination of forces.