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: high speed, high maneuverability, long range, uses a proximity fuse, concussive force does a lot of damage along with shrapnel.
Anti-armour: requires a direct hit, uses a shaped charge, short range.
Anti-personnel: air burst, fragmation, low explosive yield. Cheap.
Anti-air: high speed, high maneuverability, long range, uses a proximity fuse, concussive force does a lot of damage along with shrapnel.
Anti-armour: requires a direct hit, uses a shaped charge, short range.
Anti-personnel: air burst, fragmation, low explosive yield. Cheap.
Let’s scale things down for reference.
Bird shot = anti air.
Slug = anti tank.
Buck shot = bit of both
Grenade = lot of both
Let’s scale things down for reference.
Bird shot = anti air.
Slug = anti tank.
Buck shot = bit of both
Grenade = lot of both
Let’s scale things down for reference.
Bird shot = anti air.
Slug = anti tank.
Buck shot = bit of both
Grenade = lot of both
I used to assemble/maintain bombs in my country’s Air Force, I can explain this like you’re 5. This is going to be a *very* dark conversation for a kindergartner lol.
Different targets are vulnerable to different things. People are soft, and the most efficient way to kill people is by making them bleed out (like getting shot), so shrapnel is best. A bomb blows up, and sends pieces of metal in every direction.
Planes are also vulnerable to shrapnel, because they can’t have too much armor since they have to fly and maneuver. A missile has to be fast to catch a plane, so it doesn’t have a whole lot of explosive in it, most of it is fuel. Most Air-to-air missiles (missiles fired from a jet) only have about 20 pounds of explosive in them. Which sounds like a lot, but most bombs/missiles designed for ground targets have hundreds of pounds of explosives. The missile gets close to the plane and then explodes, sending shrapnel into the body or damaging the engines (which are VERY fragile).
Tanks are very well armored though, they’re designed to laugh off shrapnel. Many are so well armored and designed that even an explosive detonating on them won’t stop them. So to stop a tank, you fire a single round at it *really freaking fast*, and make it so hard and heavy (they often use a non-radioactive uranium or tungsten round) that it goes through the tank like a bullet goes through people. When this round goes through the armor, friction makes it extremely hot, and when it passes through the can of the tank the heat, force, and shrapnel from the armor kills everyone inside.
It would be very hard to shoot down a plane with an anti-tank round, and shooting a tank with an anti-air missile won’t hurt it that much.
I used to assemble/maintain bombs in my country’s Air Force, I can explain this like you’re 5. This is going to be a *very* dark conversation for a kindergartner lol.
Different targets are vulnerable to different things. People are soft, and the most efficient way to kill people is by making them bleed out (like getting shot), so shrapnel is best. A bomb blows up, and sends pieces of metal in every direction.
Planes are also vulnerable to shrapnel, because they can’t have too much armor since they have to fly and maneuver. A missile has to be fast to catch a plane, so it doesn’t have a whole lot of explosive in it, most of it is fuel. Most Air-to-air missiles (missiles fired from a jet) only have about 20 pounds of explosive in them. Which sounds like a lot, but most bombs/missiles designed for ground targets have hundreds of pounds of explosives. The missile gets close to the plane and then explodes, sending shrapnel into the body or damaging the engines (which are VERY fragile).
Tanks are very well armored though, they’re designed to laugh off shrapnel. Many are so well armored and designed that even an explosive detonating on them won’t stop them. So to stop a tank, you fire a single round at it *really freaking fast*, and make it so hard and heavy (they often use a non-radioactive uranium or tungsten round) that it goes through the tank like a bullet goes through people. When this round goes through the armor, friction makes it extremely hot, and when it passes through the can of the tank the heat, force, and shrapnel from the armor kills everyone inside.
It would be very hard to shoot down a plane with an anti-tank round, and shooting a tank with an anti-air missile won’t hurt it that much.
I used to assemble/maintain bombs in my country’s Air Force, I can explain this like you’re 5. This is going to be a *very* dark conversation for a kindergartner lol.
Different targets are vulnerable to different things. People are soft, and the most efficient way to kill people is by making them bleed out (like getting shot), so shrapnel is best. A bomb blows up, and sends pieces of metal in every direction.
Planes are also vulnerable to shrapnel, because they can’t have too much armor since they have to fly and maneuver. A missile has to be fast to catch a plane, so it doesn’t have a whole lot of explosive in it, most of it is fuel. Most Air-to-air missiles (missiles fired from a jet) only have about 20 pounds of explosive in them. Which sounds like a lot, but most bombs/missiles designed for ground targets have hundreds of pounds of explosives. The missile gets close to the plane and then explodes, sending shrapnel into the body or damaging the engines (which are VERY fragile).
Tanks are very well armored though, they’re designed to laugh off shrapnel. Many are so well armored and designed that even an explosive detonating on them won’t stop them. So to stop a tank, you fire a single round at it *really freaking fast*, and make it so hard and heavy (they often use a non-radioactive uranium or tungsten round) that it goes through the tank like a bullet goes through people. When this round goes through the armor, friction makes it extremely hot, and when it passes through the can of the tank the heat, force, and shrapnel from the armor kills everyone inside.
It would be very hard to shoot down a plane with an anti-tank round, and shooting a tank with an anti-air missile won’t hurt it that much.
An anti-air weapon generally has to hit a very fast-moving, but easily damaged target. You want something that can punch a lot of small holes through lightweight aluminum. And it has to either move very fast, or you have to be able to fire a lot of them, because your target might be moving at many hundreds of miles per hour. It helps if your weapon can follow a target by using radar or heat.
An anti-tank weapon has to be able to punch through a massive amount of steel (or better) armor, and deliver enough energy to damage a very well-built machine inside that armor. You want something that’s very heavy, and very hot. It doesn’t have to move all that fast, because tanks are practically standing still compared to aircraft, but things like radar and heat seeking don’t really work all that well against tanks. You’ll probably want laser guidance, or a manual targeting system.
Now you probably could design a weapon that will do both of those things. The problem is that it will cost much more than the two separate ones, because making a really heavy anti-tank weapon go fast enough to hit a plane is really hard. Instead, it’s better to just use separate weapons.
One exception, a tactical nuke, can kill either target, but that opens up a whole new can of worms.
An anti-air weapon generally has to hit a very fast-moving, but easily damaged target. You want something that can punch a lot of small holes through lightweight aluminum. And it has to either move very fast, or you have to be able to fire a lot of them, because your target might be moving at many hundreds of miles per hour. It helps if your weapon can follow a target by using radar or heat.
An anti-tank weapon has to be able to punch through a massive amount of steel (or better) armor, and deliver enough energy to damage a very well-built machine inside that armor. You want something that’s very heavy, and very hot. It doesn’t have to move all that fast, because tanks are practically standing still compared to aircraft, but things like radar and heat seeking don’t really work all that well against tanks. You’ll probably want laser guidance, or a manual targeting system.
Now you probably could design a weapon that will do both of those things. The problem is that it will cost much more than the two separate ones, because making a really heavy anti-tank weapon go fast enough to hit a plane is really hard. Instead, it’s better to just use separate weapons.
One exception, a tactical nuke, can kill either target, but that opens up a whole new can of worms.
Latest Answers