Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: tank weapons
Message-ID: <1991Mar20.034944.2529@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 20 Mar 91 03:49:44 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.004455.24094@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (william.b.thacker)
Organization: The Boeing Co., MMST, Seattle, Wa.
Lines: 35
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt)

> From: nelson_p@apollo.com
 
>   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?

    Same kind of gnashing of teeth and doctrinal scrubbing took place
    after the Yom Kippur War - and the advent of the Anti-tank guided
    missile (ATGM).  However, armies continue to improve their armor
    forces and main battle tanks for two main reasons:
    
    1.  The best anti-tank defense is ..... another tank.
    2.  The tank's main use is shock effect! 

    The tank has 'never' been a mobile artillery piece - given that
    artillery is an indirect fire area weapon and the tank is a direct
    fire point weapon.   However, I know one tank commander who called
    for a SABOT round and the gunner indexed HEAT.  The super-elevation
    shot that SABOT round a jillion miles.  From then on - we called on
    his tank for indirect fire support.   :-)

    The technology battle will continue - tank vs missle.


    mike schmitt


                    "Armor - the arm of decision"