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
The effectiveness of a tool is inversely proportional to the number of tasks for which it is designed. You can usually get two or three distinct functions out of a single tool without substantially affecting it, but the more you do the more it fails.
Anti-air and anti-tank are two very different targrt profiles.
Aircraft are lightly armored, maneuver in a three dimensional space, and move much faster than most ground vehicles. You need an attack system that can track that fast moving target, and enough energy to reach the target, but it doesnt take much energy to damage the target. Shrapnel is very effective against aircraft, so flak shells and some anti-air missiles are designed to explode near the aircraft to increase their chance of doing damage.
Tanks are heavily armored and drive across the ground. The weakest armor on a tank is the top and the bottom, because their profiles are designed to fight other tanks. Shaped charges and/or penetrators are necessary to defeat the armor, and the weapon has to be either super portable or able to engage the tank without being detected. Shaped charge mines are very effective against tanks, but much more effective are guided missiles which utilize a “top attack” to strike the thinner top armor.
Anti-tank weapons can be used against air assets. If you score a hit you will do massive damage. Anti-air weapons are less likely to be effective against tanks, with the exception of some high velocity autocannons.
Latest Answers