Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: nelson_p@apollo.com Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: tank weapons Message-ID: <1991Mar18.004455.24094@cbnews.att.com> Date: 18 Mar 91 00:44:55 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 39 Approved: military@att.att.com From: nelson_p@apollo.com Boy, after the overwhelming 8-) response to my IFF question I'm a little reluctant to try this one, but here goes: What is the basic mission of a main battle tank and how does it relate to its main armament? Most MBT's today are equipped with a 105 - 120 mm gun. Is it expected that this is to be mainly used to kill tanks and "thick skinned" vehicles? Or is the tank seen as a kind of mobile artillery piece? Or what? The reason why I'm asking is that it appears that the most effective anti-armor weapons used in the Iraq war were various kinds of missiles like the TOW and Hellfire missiles fired from a variety of platforms. Might it not make more sense to equip MBT's with such missiles instead of a big main gun? Wouldn't a missile-armed tank require less stabilizing currently needed for precise aiming of the gun, and less recoil shock protection? Since some missiles can be programmed to do various maneuvering prior to target acquisition, or hit targets illuminated by other sources than where it was fired from, mightn't this allow the tank to fire from hidden (safer) places? Against modern laminated or reactive armor isn't a missile a surer "kill" than round from a tank's gun? BTW, I have in mind more "fire and forget" smart missiles or missiles guided by laser designation than older, "dumber", more operator-vulnerable systems like the TOW, although I realize that TOW-equipped Bradleys had some success against Iraqi armor. ---Peter