What makes a weapon anti-air or anti-tank? Would anti-air be effective against tanks? Could we create one weapon that covers both, or even all possible targets?
In: 864
Anti air is designed to hit fast moving targets, usually by covering a large area with projectiles like a shotgun. Anti tank is designed to puncture slow moving armor and disable the crew or mechanical function inside, so its usually a single projectile with lots of force.
Anti air is designed to hit fast moving targets, usually by covering a large area with projectiles like a shotgun. Anti tank is designed to puncture slow moving armor and disable the crew or mechanical function inside, so its usually a single projectile with lots of force.
A multi purpose missile or projectile would be needlessly expensive, complex and very likely less effective trying to do too many things.
Anti-air requires speed, maneuverability and typically can disable aircraft by proximity detonation in a certain volume of space.
Anti-tank is usually anti-armor. The energy has to be directed very specifically (or the thing has to be huge) to be effective against modern armor.
It would be difficult to make both happen with a single type of warhead.
Anti air is designed to hit fast moving targets, usually by covering a large area with projectiles like a shotgun. Anti tank is designed to puncture slow moving armor and disable the crew or mechanical function inside, so its usually a single projectile with lots of force.
A multi purpose missile or projectile would be needlessly expensive, complex and very likely less effective trying to do too many things.
Anti-air requires speed, maneuverability and typically can disable aircraft by proximity detonation in a certain volume of space.
Anti-tank is usually anti-armor. The energy has to be directed very specifically (or the thing has to be huge) to be effective against modern armor.
It would be difficult to make both happen with a single type of warhead.
A multi purpose missile or projectile would be needlessly expensive, complex and very likely less effective trying to do too many things.
Anti-air requires speed, maneuverability and typically can disable aircraft by proximity detonation in a certain volume of space.
Anti-tank is usually anti-armor. The energy has to be directed very specifically (or the thing has to be huge) to be effective against modern armor.
It would be difficult to make both happen with a single type of warhead.
Theres been a few guns that can do both but they use different ammunition depending on what they’re aiming for. The most famous one is probably the German 88mm gun in WW2 which started as an AA gun but is more famous for taking tanks out. It can be used for both mainly because the muzzle velocity is extremely high which means it can reach high altitude if its firing AA or it has the energy to penetrate armour if its an AT round.
Theres been a few guns that can do both but they use different ammunition depending on what they’re aiming for. The most famous one is probably the German 88mm gun in WW2 which started as an AA gun but is more famous for taking tanks out. It can be used for both mainly because the muzzle velocity is extremely high which means it can reach high altitude if its firing AA or it has the energy to penetrate armour if its an AT round.
Theres been a few guns that can do both but they use different ammunition depending on what they’re aiming for. The most famous one is probably the German 88mm gun in WW2 which started as an AA gun but is more famous for taking tanks out. It can be used for both mainly because the muzzle velocity is extremely high which means it can reach high altitude if its firing AA or it has the energy to penetrate armour if its an AT round.
As others have said, tanks and aircraft present different challenges.
Aircraft are fragile, fast, manoeuvrable and usually high up in the air, while tanks are heavily armoured, robust and almost always on the ground.
There are some exceptions to the rule, mostly guns that are high velocity. This makes it easier to shoot shells high up in the air and to hit things that are fast or agile, and it also makes them good for punching through armour.
So a number of anti-aircraft guns were put into service as anti-tank weapons in WW2 (albeit with different ammunition, as /u/toffeemanstan notes). The most famous is the German flak-88, but the Russians and Americans did the same. As planes have flown higher and faster, this kind of AA gun has become obsolete.
There’s also at least one missile system, ADATS, that was designed as a dual-purpose weapon but I’m not sure it was ever adopted. The extra cost or limitations outweighed the advantages.
One other thing to note is that when we say “aircraft” we don’t just mean planes. Helicopters are a little bit of a special case, since they fly more slowly and often lower. So they can still be vulnerable to high velocity guns. In theory both the autocannons on infantry fighting and scout vehicles and the cannons on main battle tanks can be used against helicopters, though I don’t know if this has been done much in practice. Some anti-tank guided missiles can also be used against helicopters (many can be used against anything you can keep the crosshairs on), and I think there are some examples from Ukraine of this actually being done.
Latest Answers