rwsayer@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ronald W Sayer) (04/02/91)
From: rwsayer@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ronald W Sayer) Are most hand-held or tripod-mounted anti-tank weapons of the HEAT or of the kinetic variety (such as the TOW 2 and HOT)? Do the US, USSR, and Iraq tend to buy/use one kind over the other? I wonder if the spread of reactive armor will change the types of anti-tank weapons in the future. Ron Sayer rwsayer@phoenix.princeton.edu
x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT) (04/04/91)
From: x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu (Bergman Charles CDT)
IN reply to Ronald Sayer's question about anti-tank weapons.
I know the TOW, TOW II, and Hellfire use shaped charged warheads. It
seems to me that the missiles could not be effective with a kinetic energy
warhead. There would be very little kinetic energy in these low velocity
missiles. A sabot type warhead needs extremely high velocity to punch through
armor, ie. it needs to be fired from a conventional high-velocity barrel--a
tank!
Additionally, the Apaches would be totally ineffective against other
targets unless it had some high explosive charged warhead in the Hellfire
missile, besides the 2.75 inch rockets. The Hellfire is laser designated and
has two in-line shaped charges to penetrate armor, but can be used against
bunkers and other hard targets.
Basically, you need to re-evaluate what a kinetic energy round is. Unless you
had a missile that travels over a mile a second then no way.
You must have a charge on these missiles.
Charles K. Bergman
x35147d3@usma8.usma.edu
x35147d3@usma8-emh2.army.milhenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/05/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: rwsayer@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ronald W Sayer) > Are most hand-held or tripod-mounted anti-tank weapons >of the HEAT or of the kinetic variety (such as the TOW 2 and HOT)? Kinetic-energy weapons require very high velocities, which are difficult to achieve with rockets. *All* hand-held and tripod-mount anti-tank weapons are HEAT. People are only just starting to talk about building kinetic-energy missiles; at the moment, kinetic-energy weapons are restricted to armor-piercing ammunition for tank guns and other artillery. -- "The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology SunOS 4.1.1 are all true." -D. Harrison| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
cmort@ncoast.org (Chris Morton) (04/08/91)
From: cmort@ncoast.org (Chris Morton) >From: rwsayer@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ronald W Sayer) > Are most hand-held or tripod-mounted anti-tank weapons >of the HEAT or of the kinetic variety (such as the TOW 2 and HOT)? Almost none of these weapons develop the velocity to kill by kinetic energy. Most kinetic energy weapons are conventional anti-tank guns, which only the Soviet Union as pursued for quite a while. An exception is the ARES 75mm automatic gun. Of course neither this nor the Soviet weapons is tripod mounted. Kinetic energy weapons by definition require high velocities, and those sorts of velocities are not usually compatible with the portability of a TOW. > Do the US, USSR, and Iraq tend to buy/use one kind over >the other? I wonder if the spread of reactive armor will change >the types of anti-tank weapons in the future. The Soviets still have a lot of AT guns. The US uses missiles and unguided rockets with HEAT warheads almost exclusively, with a HEAT firing recoilless rifles still around. Iraq uses mostly Soviet equipment, so expect them to follow Soviet practice. cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton "These opinions are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!"