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
For what it’s worth, in the Ukraine war we’ve seen weapons used beyond their intended purpose, like Javelin anti tank missiles used on low flying helicopters or S300 air defense missiles used to attack ground targets, but it’s not really what they’re best at
You see some overlap in the realm of anti-armor and anti-helicopter weapons.
Something designed to take out tanks from a long range often can be made to work against helicopters. There have been several videos of Ukraine shooting down helicopters using Javelins anti-tank weapons.
It’s less easy, but still possible, to design a light anti-air missile that can also be used against ground targets. The warheads you see on small SAM missiles isn’t going to be enough to take out a tank, but things like the UK Starstreak are designed with the idea of engaging ‘light’ armored vehicles like infantry fighting vehicles.
Anti air is hitting a bullet with a bullet. Anti tank is hitting a tank with a really big bullet. The tank is much slower but has much more armor. The challenges are very different from an engineering perspective.
You see some overlap in the realm of anti-armor and anti-helicopter weapons.
Something designed to take out tanks from a long range often can be made to work against helicopters. There have been several videos of Ukraine shooting down helicopters using Javelins anti-tank weapons.
It’s less easy, but still possible, to design a light anti-air missile that can also be used against ground targets. The warheads you see on small SAM missiles isn’t going to be enough to take out a tank, but things like the UK Starstreak are designed with the idea of engaging ‘light’ armored vehicles like infantry fighting vehicles.
Anti air is hitting a bullet with a bullet. Anti tank is hitting a tank with a really big bullet. The tank is much slower but has much more armor. The challenges are very different from an engineering perspective.
Anti air is hitting a bullet with a bullet. Anti tank is hitting a tank with a really big bullet. The tank is much slower but has much more armor. The challenges are very different from an engineering perspective.
Aircraft are fast-moving and lightly armored. You need a weapon that can get close any do damage from nearby.
Tanks are slow-moving and heavily armored. You need a weapon that can hit directly and concentrate all of its destructive energy in one point to defeat the armor.
Aircraft are fast-moving and lightly armored. You need a weapon that can get close any do damage from nearby.
Tanks are slow-moving and heavily armored. You need a weapon that can hit directly and concentrate all of its destructive energy in one point to defeat the armor.
Lets assume both weapons have targeting systems
Anti air has a system for targeting flying stuff (i remember there was some system that locked on the rotor of helicopters) and a payload designed to kill aircraft, which dont have that much armor
The anti tank one carries a system designed for tanks and a payload meant to defeat armor
But a more simple approach would be this
In ww2 you had 20mm cannons that fired HE for palnes, and 75 mm cannons that fired AP for tanks.
A weapons that could do both would honestly be useless and very expensive. If you commander does not have the same IQ as a Labrador, im sure he will figure out a way to have some infantry with aa rockets and some with at rockets
Aircraft are fast-moving and lightly armored. You need a weapon that can get close any do damage from nearby.
Tanks are slow-moving and heavily armored. You need a weapon that can hit directly and concentrate all of its destructive energy in one point to defeat the armor.
Latest Answers