nelson_p@apollo.com (03/18/91)
From: nelson_p@apollo.com
Boy, after the overwhelming 8-) response to my IFF question
I'm a little reluctant to try this one, but here goes:
What is the basic mission of a main battle tank and how
does it relate to its main armament? Most MBT's today
are equipped with a 105 - 120 mm gun. Is it expected that
this is to be mainly used to kill tanks and "thick skinned"
vehicles? Or is the tank seen as a kind of mobile
artillery piece? Or what?
The reason why I'm asking is that it appears that the most
effective anti-armor weapons used in the Iraq war were various
kinds of missiles like the TOW and Hellfire missiles fired
from a variety of platforms. Might it not make more sense
to equip MBT's with such missiles instead of a big main gun?
Wouldn't a missile-armed tank require less stabilizing currently
needed for precise aiming of the gun, and less recoil shock
protection? Since some missiles can be programmed to do
various maneuvering prior to target acquisition, or hit targets
illuminated by other sources than where it was fired from, mightn't
this allow the tank to fire from hidden (safer) places? Against
modern laminated or reactive armor isn't a missile a surer "kill"
than round from a tank's gun? BTW, I have in mind more "fire
and forget" smart missiles or missiles guided by laser designation
than older, "dumber", more operator-vulnerable systems like the
TOW, although I realize that TOW-equipped Bradleys had some success
against Iraqi armor.
---Peter
smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) (03/19/91)
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
In article nelson_p@apollo.com writes...
/ What is the basic mission of a main battle tank and how
/ does it relate to its main armament? Most MBT's today
/ are equipped with a 105 - 120 mm gun. Is it expected that
/ this is to be mainly used to kill tanks and "thick skinned"
/ vehicles?
Destruction of enemy armour is one mission of the tank. The main mission of
the tank is similar to the calvary of old: to get into the enemies' rear areas
to destroy or neutralize his command, control and communication facilities,
disrupt his supplies and attack his main forces from the rear.
/Or is the tank seen as a kind of mobile
/ artillery piece?
This is a tertiary role of tanks.
/ The reason why I'm asking is that it appears that the most
/ effective anti-armor weapons used in the Iraq war were various
/ kinds of missiles like the TOW and Hellfire missiles fired
/ from a variety of platforms. Might it not make more sense
/ to equip MBT's with such missiles instead of a big main gun?
Some Soviet tanks can fire a missile called the Songster.
/ Wouldn't a missile-armed tank require less stabilizing currently
/ needed for precise aiming of the gun, and less recoil shock
/ protection?
You still need stabilization of the sights if you expect to hit anything
on the move.
/ Since some missiles can be programmed to do
/ various maneuvering prior to target acquisition,
This preprogramming in only applicable for fixed targets.
/ or hit targets
/ illuminated by other sources than where it was fired from, mightn't
/ this allow the tank to fire from hidden (safer) places?
Yes this is one advantage of missiles over guns.
/ Against
/ modern laminated or reactive armor isn't a missile a surer "kill"
/ than round from a tank's gun?
No this is incorrect: reactive armour is effective against the HEAT shell
of the missile and is ineffective against shot. Laminated armour is more
effective against HEAT than against shot.
/ BTW, I have in mind more "fire
/ and forget" smart missiles or missiles guided by laser designation
/ than older, "dumber", more operator-vulnerable systems like the
/ TOW, although I realize that TOW-equipped Bradleys had some success
/ against Iraqi armor.
Missiles are great weapons for the lighter-armoured vehicles because of
their light weight but missiles can be more easily countered than
dumb high-velocity shot.scott@sting.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) (03/20/91)
From: scott@sting.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Silvey) smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan) writes: |> / The reason why I'm asking is that it appears that the most |> / effective anti-armor weapons used in the Iraq war were various |> / kinds of missiles like the TOW and Hellfire missiles fired |> / from a variety of platforms. Might it not make more sense |> / to equip MBT's with such missiles instead of a big main gun? |> |> Some Soviet tanks can fire a missile called the Songster. The T-80 is one of them. This gives them a good long-range accurate anti-vehicle weapon. In any case, there are already many cheap, dedicated missile platforms around. We have M113 "Tank Destroyers" which just go around launching ITOW's from the rear. The Soviet's have similar vehicles (a modified BMP is one of them). M3A2 Bradleys carry a lot of ITOWs. |> / Wouldn't a missile-armed tank require less stabilizing currently |> / needed for precise aiming of the gun, and less recoil shock |> / protection? |> |> You still need stabilization of the sights if you expect to hit anything |> on the move. I don't think ATGM's can be fired by a moving platform (currently) ... is this correct? In any case, it IS true that missile systems are somewhat lighter (you couldn't put the Abrams' 120mm gun on a HMMMV!). |> / Since some missiles can be programmed to do |> / various maneuvering prior to target acquisition, |> This preprogramming in only applicable for fixed targets. I believe the Harpoon is a "terminal popup" missile, meaning it pops up in a high arcing trajectory about a kilometer from it's target and comes crashing down on the victim from above. Of course, these victims are large, lumbering radar targets moving along predictable 30kt courses. Ships are not strictly "fixed" targets. ;^) |> / or hit targets |> / illuminated by other sources than where it was fired from, mightn't |> / this allow the tank to fire from hidden (safer) places? |> / BTW, I have in mind more "fire |> / and forget" smart missiles or missiles guided by laser designation |> / than older, "dumber", more operator-vulnerable systems like the TOW I believe there IS work being done on a popup standoff missile that can be fired toward general enemy positions ... after launch the missile will then begin to look around for targets on it's own. At the time I heard about this though, it was just a concept. (Skeet munitions are sort of like this). It is very difficult to develop completely "smart" missiles which can merely fly themselves at a visual target. The best we have is the Maverick seeker which attempts to keep a visual lock on a target that has a high contrast against it's background (visual or IR). However, Mavericks have problems even with this "simple" task ... they often lose their locks after launch (especially if the original view of the target doesn't have much contrast ... often true in the middle of the day), they can be diverted by nearby "bright" spots such as fires or the target's shadow, and the IR versions usually require their targets to have a significant heat signature. Prior to the Iraq war, the Mavericks were reported to have an 80% success rate, but this report is from the manufacturer (based on tests and Isreali combat experience). I think they didn't fare as well in the Gulf. Tanks with cold engines that were parked in berms during the day were particularly difficult to hit. |> / Against |> / modern laminated or reactive armor isn't a missile a surer "kill" |> / than round from a tank's gun? |> |> No this is incorrect: reactive armour is effective against the HEAT shell |> of the missile and is ineffective against shot. Laminated armour is more |> effective against HEAT than against shot. In fact, I believe missile and HEAT rounds can be completely disrupted by heavy reactive armor. The ceramic layer in CHOBHAM armor on the M1 is also particularly resistant to HEAT. Reactive armor works by blasting away the penetrating jet created from the HEAT round. Ceramic just happens not to melt very well. In contrast, it is difficult to resist a well-placed APDS round. Other disadvantages of missiles are that they are large and slow compared to gun rounds (sub-mach as opposed to mach 5+ I think), and that they are highly visible. This visibility gives the targets a chance to actually evade the missile by either ducking behind cover or by blowing away the operator before the missile impacts. Also, current guided missiles must be guided by the operator, tying him up for a fairly long time until the missile actually impacts (besides making him vulnerable, which has been mentioned). If it turns out that current ATGM's can't be launched from moving platforms, then there is also the obvious problem that the operator can't even try to make himself an evading target while guiding a missile. /-----------------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Scott Silvey | Ronald Reagan to surgeons in emergency ward after | | scott@xcf.berkeley.edu | being shot: | | | | | Flames to /dev/null | "Please tell me you're Republicans." | \-----------------------------------------------------------------------------/
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (03/20/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: nelson_p@apollo.com > What is the basic mission of a main battle tank and how > does it relate to its main armament? Most MBT's today > are equipped with a 105 - 120 mm gun. Is it expected that > this is to be mainly used to kill tanks and "thick skinned" > vehicles? Or is the tank seen as a kind of mobile > artillery piece? Or what? Same kind of gnashing of teeth and doctrinal scrubbing took place after the Yom Kippur War - and the advent of the Anti-tank guided missile (ATGM). However, armies continue to improve their armor forces and main battle tanks for two main reasons: 1. The best anti-tank defense is ..... another tank. 2. The tank's main use is shock effect! The tank has 'never' been a mobile artillery piece - given that artillery is an indirect fire area weapon and the tank is a direct fire point weapon. However, I know one tank commander who called for a SABOT round and the gunner indexed HEAT. The super-elevation shot that SABOT round a jillion miles. From then on - we called on his tank for indirect fire support. :-) The technology battle will continue - tank vs missle. mike schmitt "Armor - the arm of decision"