Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-tank weapons
Message-ID: <1991Apr5.092124.8320@amd.com>
Date: 4 Apr 91 18:06:45 GMT
References: <1991Apr1.042920.17593@amd.com> <1991Apr2.065336.15687@amd.com> <1991Apr3.024547.23872@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 17
Approved: military@amd.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From: rwsayer@phoenix.princeton.edu (Ronald W Sayer)
>	Are most hand-held or tripod-mounted anti-tank weapons
>of the HEAT or of the kinetic variety (such as the TOW 2 and HOT)? 

Kinetic-energy weapons require very high velocities, which are difficult
to achieve with rockets.  *All* hand-held and tripod-mount anti-tank
weapons are HEAT.  People are only just starting to talk about building
kinetic-energy missiles; at the moment, kinetic-energy weapons are
restricted to armor-piercing ammunition for tank guns and other artillery.

-- 
"The stories one hears about putting up | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
SunOS 4.1.1 are all true."  -D. Harrison|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry