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
In easiest terms AT projectiles shoot a molten jet to piece through heavy armor. AA projectiles are high explosive to shred the plane and most likely they are proximity fuse so you dont need to hit it directly
In easiest terms AT projectiles shoot a molten jet to piece through heavy armor. AA projectiles are high explosive to shred the plane and most likely they are proximity fuse so you dont need to hit it directly
The RPG-7 have been successfully to bring down Blackhawk helicopters.
The Ukrainians have used Stugna ATGM to shoot down a Hind helicopter.
Generally it comes down to the actual system cueing the weapon to the target. A Surface to Air Missile will take out a tank, much like an anti-tank round will take out an aircraft.
Generally Anti-tank weapons must be lightweight (Carried by infantry) reasonably disposable and short range (within visual range). Anti-Aircraft missiles need to solve a target location in angle. range and velocity and the associated rates of change of those as a fighter travels at 800mph. This carries with it the requirement for (normally) a Radar to cue the weapon which is technologically advanced, large in size and has significant power and processing requirements.
Fighter pilots don’t care about the weapon, they care about and aim to defeat the radar cueing it.
>Would anti-air be effective against tanks?
Anti-Air would not pack enough punch to do significant damage to a tank.
An anti-tank weapon fired at an aircraft could pass right through it with minimal damage. Not likely, but possible.
The RPG-7 have been successfully to bring down Blackhawk helicopters.
The Ukrainians have used Stugna ATGM to shoot down a Hind helicopter.
Knives are a good analogy.
A butcher knife is big and heavy because it has to break through cartilage and sometimes even bones. Trying to peel a potato with one would be useless because you’d cut half the potato off with the skin.
A paring knife is sharp and agile for peeling thin skins off of things. It would be quickly blunted trying to cut through bone and it doesn’t have enough weight or length to get through much material quickly.
Anti armor and bunker projectiles are usually heavy and sharp to poke through a lot of material that is hit directly. Anti aircraft and personnel usually burst with shrapnel because small amounts of damage can kill but the target is much more fast/agile.
Some tools are good at many jobs, but if you want a tool to be GREAT at a job it’s gonna be great at usually only one.
In easiest terms AT projectiles shoot a molten jet to piece through heavy armor. AA projectiles are high explosive to shred the plane and most likely they are proximity fuse so you dont need to hit it directly
>Would anti-air be effective against tanks?
Anti-Air would not pack enough punch to do significant damage to a tank.
An anti-tank weapon fired at an aircraft could pass right through it with minimal damage. Not likely, but possible.
Knives are a good analogy.
A butcher knife is big and heavy because it has to break through cartilage and sometimes even bones. Trying to peel a potato with one would be useless because you’d cut half the potato off with the skin.
A paring knife is sharp and agile for peeling thin skins off of things. It would be quickly blunted trying to cut through bone and it doesn’t have enough weight or length to get through much material quickly.
Anti armor and bunker projectiles are usually heavy and sharp to poke through a lot of material that is hit directly. Anti aircraft and personnel usually burst with shrapnel because small amounts of damage can kill but the target is much more fast/agile.
Some tools are good at many jobs, but if you want a tool to be GREAT at a job it’s gonna be great at usually only one.
Latest Answers