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
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.
A1: anti-air usually requires that the weapon have some kind of guidance system that can track an aircraft. Typically this is either radar or infrared. While anti-tank missiles can have guidance systems as well, usually laser, gps, wire, or infrared/image guidance, this is not a hard requirement since tanks are often stationary or slow moving targets, and can be hit with unguided weapons.
Additionally, the warhead used is very different. Tanks are very heavily armored and difficult to actually destroy. Which means you either need a lot of explosives (HE) or an explosive charge specifically designed to penetrate tank armor (HEAT). Aircraft on the other hand are very fragile, and it doesn’t take much to bring them down so a smaller, less powerful warhead can be used, and the weight savings can go towards having longer range, and/or better manuverability.
A2: sort of. It depends on the specific missile and the specific tank. Some anti-air missiles do have warheads large enough to damage or possibly destroy some tanks, however this is not their intended use, and you probably would not be able to acquire a solid guidance lock either. You would also be wasting it by using it against a tank instead of an aircraft. Always better to use the right tool when you have the option.
A3: yes, it is possible but in most cases, not very practical. A general purpose missile would need to have a large enough warhead to destroy tanks, while still having flight characteristics that are favorable for intetcepting aircraft, and have adequate range & guidance to service both roles. Ultimately, such a missile would be large, heavy, and very expensive compared to it’s more specialized counterparts.
Such missiles do (kind of) exist though. The US navy’s SM-2 (RIM-66) is one example. While it is classified as an anti-aircraft missile, it does have inertial guidance in addition to radar. So, theoretically, it could be used as an anti-tank weapon, but this would not be efficient since US navy ships carry other missiles & ordinance that would be better suited for that task.
Another example is the russian S300. Also considered an anti-aircraft missile, but russia has a variant that has limited surface guidance and can be used as a ballistic missile, which in turn could be used in an anti-tank capacity. It’s currently being used to terrorize ukranians though.
On a side note, pretty much any kind of large surface striking missiles, such as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, IRBMS, ICBMS, etc. Can all be easily used as anti-tank weapons, however these weapons are not typically described as being anti-tank weapons, and are quite frankly, massively overkill for taking out a *single* tank.
Another side note is that the US air force is working on a “modular missile system” which is a kind of reconfigurable missile that will allow you to swap out payloads & guidance systems to suit the situation.
Edit: removed kamikazi drones in the side note, as it did not fit what i was describing.
A1: anti-air usually requires that the weapon have some kind of guidance system that can track an aircraft. Typically this is either radar or infrared. While anti-tank missiles can have guidance systems as well, usually laser, gps, wire, or infrared/image guidance, this is not a hard requirement since tanks are often stationary or slow moving targets, and can be hit with unguided weapons.
Additionally, the warhead used is very different. Tanks are very heavily armored and difficult to actually destroy. Which means you either need a lot of explosives (HE) or an explosive charge specifically designed to penetrate tank armor (HEAT). Aircraft on the other hand are very fragile, and it doesn’t take much to bring them down so a smaller, less powerful warhead can be used, and the weight savings can go towards having longer range, and/or better manuverability.
A2: sort of. It depends on the specific missile and the specific tank. Some anti-air missiles do have warheads large enough to damage or possibly destroy some tanks, however this is not their intended use, and you probably would not be able to acquire a solid guidance lock either. You would also be wasting it by using it against a tank instead of an aircraft. Always better to use the right tool when you have the option.
A3: yes, it is possible but in most cases, not very practical. A general purpose missile would need to have a large enough warhead to destroy tanks, while still having flight characteristics that are favorable for intetcepting aircraft, and have adequate range & guidance to service both roles. Ultimately, such a missile would be large, heavy, and very expensive compared to it’s more specialized counterparts.
Such missiles do (kind of) exist though. The US navy’s SM-2 (RIM-66) is one example. While it is classified as an anti-aircraft missile, it does have inertial guidance in addition to radar. So, theoretically, it could be used as an anti-tank weapon, but this would not be efficient since US navy ships carry other missiles & ordinance that would be better suited for that task.
Another example is the russian S300. Also considered an anti-aircraft missile, but russia has a variant that has limited surface guidance and can be used as a ballistic missile, which in turn could be used in an anti-tank capacity. It’s currently being used to terrorize ukranians though.
On a side note, pretty much any kind of large surface striking missiles, such as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, IRBMS, ICBMS, etc. Can all be easily used as anti-tank weapons, however these weapons are not typically described as being anti-tank weapons, and are quite frankly, massively overkill for taking out a *single* tank.
Another side note is that the US air force is working on a “modular missile system” which is a kind of reconfigurable missile that will allow you to swap out payloads & guidance systems to suit the situation.
Edit: removed kamikazi drones in the side note, as it did not fit what i was describing.
A1: anti-air usually requires that the weapon have some kind of guidance system that can track an aircraft. Typically this is either radar or infrared. While anti-tank missiles can have guidance systems as well, usually laser, gps, wire, or infrared/image guidance, this is not a hard requirement since tanks are often stationary or slow moving targets, and can be hit with unguided weapons.
Additionally, the warhead used is very different. Tanks are very heavily armored and difficult to actually destroy. Which means you either need a lot of explosives (HE) or an explosive charge specifically designed to penetrate tank armor (HEAT). Aircraft on the other hand are very fragile, and it doesn’t take much to bring them down so a smaller, less powerful warhead can be used, and the weight savings can go towards having longer range, and/or better manuverability.
A2: sort of. It depends on the specific missile and the specific tank. Some anti-air missiles do have warheads large enough to damage or possibly destroy some tanks, however this is not their intended use, and you probably would not be able to acquire a solid guidance lock either. You would also be wasting it by using it against a tank instead of an aircraft. Always better to use the right tool when you have the option.
A3: yes, it is possible but in most cases, not very practical. A general purpose missile would need to have a large enough warhead to destroy tanks, while still having flight characteristics that are favorable for intetcepting aircraft, and have adequate range & guidance to service both roles. Ultimately, such a missile would be large, heavy, and very expensive compared to it’s more specialized counterparts.
Such missiles do (kind of) exist though. The US navy’s SM-2 (RIM-66) is one example. While it is classified as an anti-aircraft missile, it does have inertial guidance in addition to radar. So, theoretically, it could be used as an anti-tank weapon, but this would not be efficient since US navy ships carry other missiles & ordinance that would be better suited for that task.
Another example is the russian S300. Also considered an anti-aircraft missile, but russia has a variant that has limited surface guidance and can be used as a ballistic missile, which in turn could be used in an anti-tank capacity. It’s currently being used to terrorize ukranians though.
On a side note, pretty much any kind of large surface striking missiles, such as cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, IRBMS, ICBMS, etc. Can all be easily used as anti-tank weapons, however these weapons are not typically described as being anti-tank weapons, and are quite frankly, massively overkill for taking out a *single* tank.
Another side note is that the US air force is working on a “modular missile system” which is a kind of reconfigurable missile that will allow you to swap out payloads & guidance systems to suit the situation.
Edit: removed kamikazi drones in the side note, as it did not fit what i was describing.
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.
With shortages, right now the Russians are using expensive anti-aircraft missiles on ground targets. An old 22mm anti-aircraft gun makes for a great Technical (armed pickup truck), Germans did use their ’88’s in towers in Berlin to shoot at tanks. It works but isn’t the best choice.
With shortages, right now the Russians are using expensive anti-aircraft missiles on ground targets. An old 22mm anti-aircraft gun makes for a great Technical (armed pickup truck), Germans did use their ’88’s in towers in Berlin to shoot at tanks. It works but isn’t the best choice.
Anti air missiles use different types of seeker heads to go after planes usually radar or heat seeking to track planes. The explosive in the missiles are not that powerful but designed to create lots of sharpnel; this isn’t an issue because planes are light weight and as such are shredded by shrapnel. Also Anti air missiles are designed to be very fast and maneuverable in order to engage aircraft effectively which needless to say can move around very quickly and are hard to hit manually
Anti tank missiles on the other hand tend to be slower rely on manual aim (not always the case some are self guiding but that’s rare and expensive) and are designed with a heavy warhead specifically designed to apply as much force to a small area as possible in order to break the tanks armor and kill the crew/detonate fuel and ammo.
Is it possible to have a missile that can effectively engage both planes and tanks yes but they are really big and not very practical and very expensive look up ADATS for an example of such a weapon system from the 1980s.
With shortages, right now the Russians are using expensive anti-aircraft missiles on ground targets. An old 22mm anti-aircraft gun makes for a great Technical (armed pickup truck), Germans did use their ’88’s in towers in Berlin to shoot at tanks. It works but isn’t the best choice.
Latest Answers