Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac,att!cbfsb!cbnewsc!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: tank weapons
Message-ID: <1991Mar19.045520.10392@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Mar 91 04:55:20 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.004455.24094@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: NASA/LeRC
Lines: 63
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
In article nelson_p@apollo.com writes...
/  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?     

Destruction of enemy armour is one mission of the tank.  The main mission of
the tank is similar to the calvary of old:  to get into the enemies' rear areas
to destroy or neutralize his command, control and communication facilities,
disrupt his supplies and attack his main forces from the rear. 

/Or is the tank seen as a kind of mobile
/  artillery piece?   

This is a tertiary role of tanks.

/  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?

Some Soviet tanks can fire a missile called the Songster.

/  Wouldn't a missile-armed tank require less stabilizing currently
/  needed for precise aiming of the gun, and less recoil shock 
/  protection?

You still need stabilization of the sights if you expect to hit anything
on the move.

/  Since some missiles can be programmed to do
/  various maneuvering prior to target acquisition, 

This preprogramming in only applicable for fixed targets.

/  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?   

Yes this is one advantage of missiles over guns.

/  Against
/  modern laminated or reactive armor isn't a missile a surer "kill"
/  than round from a tank's gun?    

No this is incorrect:  reactive armour is effective against the HEAT shell
of the missile  and is ineffective against shot.  Laminated armour is more
effective against HEAT than against shot.

/  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.

Missiles are great weapons for the lighter-armoured vehicles because of 
their light weight  but missiles can be more easily countered than
dumb high-velocity shot.