Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!sun!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: cmort@ncoast.org (Chris Morton)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-tank weapons
Message-ID: <1991Apr10.024256.20770@amd.com>
Date: 8 Apr 91 10:57:05 GMT
References: <1991Apr1.042920.17593@amd.com> <1991Apr2.065336.15687@amd.com> <1991Apr3.024547.23872@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 26
Approved: military@amd.com


From: cmort@ncoast.org (Chris Morton)


>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)? 

Almost none of these weapons develop the velocity to kill by kinetic energy.
Most kinetic energy weapons are conventional anti-tank guns, which only the
Soviet Union as pursued for quite a while.  An exception is the ARES 75mm
automatic gun.  Of course neither this nor the Soviet weapons is tripod mounted.
Kinetic energy weapons by definition require high velocities, and those 
sorts of velocities are not usually compatible with the portability of a TOW.

>	Do the US, USSR, and Iraq tend to buy/use one kind over
>the other?  I wonder if the spread of reactive armor will change
>the types of anti-tank weapons in the future. 

The Soviets still have a lot of AT guns.  The US uses missiles and unguided 
rockets with HEAT warheads almost exclusively, with a HEAT firing recoilless
rifles still around.  Iraq uses mostly Soviet equipment, so expect them to
follow Soviet practice.

cmort@ncoast.org --- Chris Morton
"These opinions are mine, MINE, ALL MINE!!!!"