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
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
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
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.
Javelin missiles can be used against helicopters and low-flying jets, and there are documented cases of helicopters being shot by laser-guided ATGMs like Stugna-P in Ukraine.
UH-60 helicopter was shot down by and an RPG-7 rocket in Mogadishu during the famous “black hawk down” incident.
And, of course, the only recorded air-to-air kill of an F-15E strike eagle was when it shot down enemy helicopter *with a bomb*.
So in short, any anti-tank weapon can be successfully used against aircraft if you manage to hit it.
Javelin missiles can be used against helicopters and low-flying jets, and there are documented cases of helicopters being shot by laser-guided ATGMs like Stugna-P in Ukraine.
UH-60 helicopter was shot down by and an RPG-7 rocket in Mogadishu during the famous “black hawk down” incident.
And, of course, the only recorded air-to-air kill of an F-15E strike eagle was when it shot down enemy helicopter *with a bomb*.
So in short, any anti-tank weapon can be successfully used against aircraft if you manage to hit it.
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.
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.
Several reasons:
The warheads are different. With a tank you want a warhead that will penetrate lots of armor, with a plane you want a warhead with lots of small dispersed fragments.
Think of shotgun, if you wanted to shoot a small bird you would not use a slug you would use birdshot. If you were shooting an elephant with a shotgun you would want a slug instead of birdshot.
Cost and effectiveness. An Anti Tank weapon does not have to be as fast as an anti air weapon. An anti air weapon needs to catch the fast plane. A fast weapons is also okay against a tank but you are spending extra for that speed that is not necessary. So I could buy more of the slower cheaper tank weapons instead.
The sensors are usually different because they look for different things. This means you need to spend more for sensors that can handle both tanks and planes when you could make a cheaper weapon that only goes after tanks and buy more of them
Several reasons:
The warheads are different. With a tank you want a warhead that will penetrate lots of armor, with a plane you want a warhead with lots of small dispersed fragments.
Think of shotgun, if you wanted to shoot a small bird you would not use a slug you would use birdshot. If you were shooting an elephant with a shotgun you would want a slug instead of birdshot.
Cost and effectiveness. An Anti Tank weapon does not have to be as fast as an anti air weapon. An anti air weapon needs to catch the fast plane. A fast weapons is also okay against a tank but you are spending extra for that speed that is not necessary. So I could buy more of the slower cheaper tank weapons instead.
The sensors are usually different because they look for different things. This means you need to spend more for sensors that can handle both tanks and planes when you could make a cheaper weapon that only goes after tanks and buy more of them
Javelin missiles can be used against helicopters and low-flying jets, and there are documented cases of helicopters being shot by laser-guided ATGMs like Stugna-P in Ukraine.
UH-60 helicopter was shot down by and an RPG-7 rocket in Mogadishu during the famous “black hawk down” incident.
And, of course, the only recorded air-to-air kill of an F-15E strike eagle was when it shot down enemy helicopter *with a bomb*.
So in short, any anti-tank weapon can be successfully used against aircraft if you manage to hit it.
Latest Answers