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
An anti-tank missile is trying to destroy a strong metal box that moves slow.
An anti-air missile is trying to destroy a thin metal box that moves fast.
Those differences change how you design the missile.
To take out the tank, the challenge isn’t how to hit the target. The target is incapable of taking evasive action since it’s really slow moving compared to a rocket. The challenge is how to take the target out once the missile gets there and has to deal with an object made of the thickest and heaviest metal alloys available, and all the important critical systems are on the inside of that box.
To take out the plane, the challenge is the reverse of that. The challenge IS how to hit the target in the first place – a fast moving thing that can really evade well and it will take most of the propellant just to catch up to it. Once you get there it doesn’t take very much of a punch to bring down a box made out of the thinnest available metal alloys designed to be light, with many of its really important critical systems exposed on the outside of that box anyway. Especially since you don’t really have to penetrate that box anyway- just do a little damage to the thin bits that stick out on the outside the box. It won’t fly right and gravity will do the rest of the work for you.
Thus anti-tank missiles tend to have a squatter, shorter shape than their anti-air counterparts and slower rocket motors, but with a more directly “punchy” payload. The anti-air missile is narrow and long, all about the speed and the “getting there”, less about the punchy payload once it does (any general area shrapnel explosion will suffice).
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
An anti-tank missile is trying to destroy a strong metal box that moves slow.
An anti-air missile is trying to destroy a thin metal box that moves fast.
Those differences change how you design the missile.
To take out the tank, the challenge isn’t how to hit the target. The target is incapable of taking evasive action since it’s really slow moving compared to a rocket. The challenge is how to take the target out once the missile gets there and has to deal with an object made of the thickest and heaviest metal alloys available, and all the important critical systems are on the inside of that box.
To take out the plane, the challenge is the reverse of that. The challenge IS how to hit the target in the first place – a fast moving thing that can really evade well and it will take most of the propellant just to catch up to it. Once you get there it doesn’t take very much of a punch to bring down a box made out of the thinnest available metal alloys designed to be light, with many of its really important critical systems exposed on the outside of that box anyway. Especially since you don’t really have to penetrate that box anyway- just do a little damage to the thin bits that stick out on the outside the box. It won’t fly right and gravity will do the rest of the work for you.
Thus anti-tank missiles tend to have a squatter, shorter shape than their anti-air counterparts and slower rocket motors, but with a more directly “punchy” payload. The anti-air missile is narrow and long, all about the speed and the “getting there”, less about the punchy payload once it does (any general area shrapnel explosion will suffice).
An anti-tank missile is trying to destroy a strong metal box that moves slow.
An anti-air missile is trying to destroy a thin metal box that moves fast.
Those differences change how you design the missile.
To take out the tank, the challenge isn’t how to hit the target. The target is incapable of taking evasive action since it’s really slow moving compared to a rocket. The challenge is how to take the target out once the missile gets there and has to deal with an object made of the thickest and heaviest metal alloys available, and all the important critical systems are on the inside of that box.
To take out the plane, the challenge is the reverse of that. The challenge IS how to hit the target in the first place – a fast moving thing that can really evade well and it will take most of the propellant just to catch up to it. Once you get there it doesn’t take very much of a punch to bring down a box made out of the thinnest available metal alloys designed to be light, with many of its really important critical systems exposed on the outside of that box anyway. Especially since you don’t really have to penetrate that box anyway- just do a little damage to the thin bits that stick out on the outside the box. It won’t fly right and gravity will do the rest of the work for you.
Thus anti-tank missiles tend to have a squatter, shorter shape than their anti-air counterparts and slower rocket motors, but with a more directly “punchy” payload. The anti-air missile is narrow and long, all about the speed and the “getting there”, less about the punchy payload once it does (any general area shrapnel explosion will suffice).
Hypersonic missiles could be effective for both air vehicles and armour, as they fly fast enough (6000mph) to punch hole thru main battle tank.
But those are at the beginning of development, and are to expensive to shot things other then intercontinental nukes and satellites.
Hypersonic missiles could be effective for both air vehicles and armour, as they fly fast enough (6000mph) to punch hole thru main battle tank.
But those are at the beginning of development, and are to expensive to shot things other then intercontinental nukes and satellites.
The Germans did this in WW2. They had the most effective anti-air artillery piece, the 88.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41
They then started using it against Sherman’s and T-34s and it was super effective.
For a more modern conflict the Taliban used several ZSU-23s against us in Afghanistan as a crew served weapon against vehicles and personnel. Here is the fact sheet on this weapon.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2
But to reaffirm a bunch of points other folks made a modern anti-air weapon such as a Patriot or a SA-19 would not be effective against tanks. The WWII and Afghanitstan examples are an anti-air “gun” (really artillery piece) and they can be used very effectively against ground forces. Modern anti-air systems consist of missiles with a warhead designed to explode to spread shrapnel to fuck up the plane or cruise missile it is targeted at. Tanks would just shrug that shrapnel off. You need special anti-tank rounds to kill a tank such as a Sabot or a HEAT round.
Hypersonic missiles could be effective for both air vehicles and armour, as they fly fast enough (6000mph) to punch hole thru main battle tank.
But those are at the beginning of development, and are to expensive to shot things other then intercontinental nukes and satellites.
The Germans did this in WW2. They had the most effective anti-air artillery piece, the 88.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.8_cm_Flak_18/36/37/41
They then started using it against Sherman’s and T-34s and it was super effective.
For a more modern conflict the Taliban used several ZSU-23s against us in Afghanistan as a crew served weapon against vehicles and personnel. Here is the fact sheet on this weapon.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZU-23-2
But to reaffirm a bunch of points other folks made a modern anti-air weapon such as a Patriot or a SA-19 would not be effective against tanks. The WWII and Afghanitstan examples are an anti-air “gun” (really artillery piece) and they can be used very effectively against ground forces. Modern anti-air systems consist of missiles with a warhead designed to explode to spread shrapnel to fuck up the plane or cruise missile it is targeted at. Tanks would just shrug that shrapnel off. You need special anti-tank rounds to kill a tank such as a Sabot or a HEAT round.
It’s kind of like hunting.
For birds, you want lots of small projectiles. They’re hard to hit, so you want to maximize your chances of hitting them and since they’re small, a few small projectiles will probably be effective/no need to hit with all of the projectiles.
For large game you need a big bullet. A small bullet will just make it angry.
Could you shoot a bird with a big bullet? Sure, but you’ll probably miss and if you did, it’d be overkill. Same for small game, a big bullet will work, but it’s not ideal.
Latest Answers