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
Tanks are heavily armored and made to resist penetration as much as possible. Explosions are practically completely ineffective against them if the hull isn’t penetrated. Aircraft have to be light in order to be able to fly which severely limits their ability to be armored. An M1 Abrams Main Battle tank weighs around 55 tons, which is typical for a modern day tank though older heavy tanks used to go well into the 60s. A passenger aircraft like an Airbus A320 weighs around 40 tons depending on the variant (without passengers and cargo). Even a huge plane like a Boeing 747 only weighs 183 tons, or basically 3 Abrams tanks. This should give you a rough idea of the size to weight ratio of tanks, which are about as big as a box truck (a typical box truck weighs 3-5tons), and aircraft which are much bigger but actually very light for their size.
Of course military aircraft differ from passenger jets but you get the basic idea. What all this means is that a projectile that is “anti armor” its main purpose is to penetrate the hull of an armored vehicle or tank. It does this through several ways, such as being very heavy, being very fast and pointy, having a shaped charge which is a specially designed explosive that punches a hole in the hull before the rest of the round explodes, or by targeting the less armored areas of a tank like Javelin missiles do by hitting the top of the tank. Armor plating on tanks is not of uniform thickness. Armored vehicles and tanks are relatively slow.
An anti air system is designed specifically for hitting aircraft. For example anti air guns (flak) were manually aimed and used shells that would detonate at a predetermined altitude by the use of a timed fuse. When the shell exploded, it sent fragments in all directions which meant that hitting and destroying an aircraft didn’t require a direct hit, just that the shell exploded close enough to the aircraft. More moden systems are designed to be able to track and catch up to fighter aircraft, which are very fast, but operate in a similar way in that they explode close to the aircraft and not necessarily hit it directly. It’s very easy to punch through the exterior skin of an aircraft and cause damage to the engine, other systems, or hit the pilot directly. It’s not easy to do the same to a tank.
Basically they’re two completely different applications and combining the two would provide no benefit. Shooting at an aircraft with a high penetration round wouldn’t help in any way but it would make the missile more complex and heavier. For tanks various systems have been developed that do combine high penetrating power and explosives but using an anti air weapon system against a tank wouldn’t necessarily be very effective.
It’s also worth noting that anti air or anti tank weapon systems encompass everything in the system, which includes the targetting mechanism as well as the round or missile itself.
Latest Answers