Less-Than-Effective NATO Weapon Systems Of World War III Part I

Weapon systems are similar to athletes, musicians and other types of celebrities in that sometimes the hype does not measure up to real world performance. If you’re an NFL fan, think of first round draft busts like Ryan Leaf and Tony Mandarich. After being drafted these two players were touted as the next greatest things to grace the gridiron. They could never be expected to live up to the lofty expectations that the media, their team coaches and owners, and fans had placed on their shoulders. Once the games began, however, it didn’t take long to see that Leaf and Mandarich were nowhere near great and likely never would be. Well, neither one lasted very long in the NFL and they’re basically viewed as cautionary tales nowadays.

In the weeks leading up to the start of the Third World War both NATO and the Warsaw Pact had a number of weapon systems in their respective inventories that had been regarded as being platforms superior to anything the opposing side had available. In some cases, wartime performance matched or even surpassed the hype put forth by pre-war analysts, defense contractors and general officers. And then there were weapon systems that underachieved or failed miserably once the shooting began.

It is worth taking a glimpse at a handful of the more underachieving weapons fielded by NATO during the war. In some instances, these weapons were known to be obsolete and had been modified and updated as much as possible to keep them effective until newer platforms were available. In others, the sub-par performance came as a rude shock and brought about revisions in tactics and usage if necessary. In July 1987 the militaries of NATO and Warsaw Pact nations went to war with the weapon systems they had available, not the ones they wanted or in some instances needed. An old story that has plagued armies for centuries.

This will be a two-part series that looks at five or six different NATO systems that performed poorly in the war. Intro and one weapon in this entry and the remainder in Part II on Monday or Tuesday night depending on how the schedule is being maintained. We’ll start off with a weapon that US troops loved to hate.

M-47 Dragon ATGM (United States)- The Dragon was a troubled weapon even before July, 1987.  A shoulder-fired, man portable anti-tank missile, the Dragon was not a favorite among the US Army infantrymen and US Marines who would take it into battle. It was bulky, susceptible to the elements and contained a HEAT warhead that many did not believe was capable of penetrating newer model Soviet tanks and armored vehicles. When the balloon went up, the Dragon received its baptism of fire in US hands. It did not take long for most of the pre-war concerns about the Dragon to be confirmed. First shot kills on T-80s and upgraded T-72s were uncommon in the first days of the war. More often than not Dragon teams targeted enemy vehicles from the front rather than the flanks. This resulted in first-shot impacts that did little more than scratch the glacis paint of Soviet tanks. As the war went on and experience was gained, surviving Dragon team members went for flank and rear shots first whenever possible. As a rule, however, Dragon teams avoided T-72 and T-80s as much as possible, leaving them to TOW teams, Bradley and Abrams gunners. The Dragons instead focused on the lighter armored BMPs, BTRs, BRDMs and ZSU anti-air vehicles and ended up with better results. However, as an anti-tank guided missile, the Dragon was a dismal failure since it was ineffective against the best Soviet tanks on the battlefield.