Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: U.S. Ground Vulnerablity
Message-ID: <1990Sep2.061204.3795@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Sep 90 06:12:04 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: att!utzoo!henry
>From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
>Of course, nobody can explain why we have a wonderful launch-and-leave
>SAM (the Stinger), but we're still using wires and leaving men out to be
>fired on with the TOW & Dragon...

Actually, it's pretty easy to explain:  an aircraft against a sky background
is a lot easier for a dumb little missile to see and follow than a tank
against complex ground clutter.  The current claim is that millimeter-wave
sensors and sophisticated software will fix this; if you believe that, I
have a bridge to sell you...

The closest thing I know of to an infantry fire-and-forget antitank missile
is an Israeli weapon -- name forgotten, somebody help? -- which is simply
gyro-stabilized to fly a straight line.

Of course, if the tank you're shooting at is an M-1 Abrams, *then* there
is no big problem, since the gas-turbine engine makes it a conspicuous
object in the infrared.  I don't *think* anyone has yet made a specialized
Abrams-killer missile...

                                         Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                          henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry