If the U.S. Army even has an anti-tank gun in service now, I don’t know what it is. I’ve never seen anything about anti-tank guns on Jane’s website. The Iraqis apparently had some 100mm anti-tank guns during Desert Storm, but they evidently didn’t do any good. And there are perfectly good airborne anti-tank guns today; the A-10 Thunderbolt and the AH-64 Apache carry them. But the old ground-based anti-tank guns like the ones I see in World War II pictures are virtually invisible today.
Are these weapons gone the way of the saber and longbow? If so, why? It can’t be that tanks are too hard to hit; aircraft are much more difficult targets and yet AA guns are still used. So has modern tank armor surpassed the ability of a practical ground-based anti-tank gun to penetrate? Or is it just that the anti-tank missiles are so good that nobody needs anti-tank guns any more? What gives?
Our tanks are nearly invulnerable to anything smaller than a high velocity 155mm shell or 100Kg missile warhead.
Opponents’ tanks are not nearly as good, but then, our tank rounds and missiles are good enough to make most towed artillery obsolete.
In other words, why tow or drive what’s essentially a large Howitzer to well within the opponents’ gun range, when you can nail 'em with the aforementioned A-10, an Apache, our own tanks or a missile battery, all from well outside their gun range?
And, I’m not sure, but I don’t think we, the US, have anti-aircraft guns in any real way except maybe on some ships. I think we engage 'em out at the fringes of radar detection. If an opponent aircraft gets within AAA gun range, he’s already WELL inside missle launch radii- ours AND his.
You are correct in assuming that the US no longer uses towed anti-tank guns, primarily because they have extremely poor mobility. They are essentially static defenses, and that strategy has been a proven failure in modern warfare. A tank neatly combines all the support systems and mobility needed to make an anti-tank gun useful, hence ending the usefulness of the towed models.
We do have lots of anti-tank guns currently, 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbores and rifled 105mms. They just happen to be attached to tanks. The A-10 carries an anti-tank gun, yes, but it’s really best at penetrating the thin top armor of a tank. The Apache’s Hughes 20mm chaingun wouldn’t do more than pester a modern MBT.
As to AAA, there is only one anti-aircraft gun system still in US service, using a 20mm Vulcan mounted on an M113. This, however, would only be useful against things like helicopters.
Doc, what exactly do you mean by a high-velocity 155mm? I thought the only thing in that size category were howitzers, and only suitable for anti-tank use when equipped with specialized smart munitions. There’s a big difference between a tank gun and a howitzer.
An additional reason against modern AT guns is that the fire-controll required to give them the same range (M1A1’s Rh120L44 maingun is 3200 meters effective range). You need a large sight, including TIS to get good visibility. To get the same degree of accuracy, you’ll also need a LRF and ballistics computer to compute that data (And even then, it’ll be hard to shoot on moving targets). Then there’s the fact that you can either go for manual aim (Very slow), or powered (Which adds a lot to weight and power requirements). If you make a modern AT gun with the effectiveness of a tank’s maingun (The only way to -fight- a tank with an AT gun, especially since they lack the mobility!), you’re really better off finishing the other half and making it a complete tank.
Myself? I’d say invest in some troop-portable ATGMs like the TOW and Milan (Or the soon-to-be Javelin). Much more mobile, easier to produce, and just as lethal and precise (Perhaps even more lethal, in the case of the top-attack TOW-2B and Javelin).
One of the advantages of a cannon type “gun” is that the projectile is pretty much at maximum velocity as it leaves the barrel.
One of the main disadvantages is that the barrel must be sufficently strong to withstand the force of the propellent expanding. This adds up to weight.
A big drawback for rocket propelled ordinance is that they need to burn most of their propellent before they reach max velocity. This makes them ineffective at extremely close range.
On the plus side, rockets don’t need much more than a thin metal tube to launch.
Since shape charged rounds can be deployed by either method, it makes more sense that non-mechanized units would choose the weight conservative option. Why carry around more than the bullet if you dont have to.
This is punctuated by the fact that a non-armor element is unlikely to survive “extremly close contact” with an armored one. Effectively eliminating the need to engage the enemy at close range.
we still have the TOW missile correct? TOW: Tube-launched Optically-tracked Wire-guided missile. ground to ground anti-tank weapon. could be mounted on various vehicles,inc the humvee. as well as shoulder launched.
Well, maybe a little, but not really. ATGMs are a little inaccurate at close range because they havn’t stabalized entirely, but LAWs and other short-range rockets don’t have any problem with close ranges (in fact, they are -only- short-range weapons, compared to ATGMs and tank cannons). It doesn’t matter how fast a shape-charged warhead is going when it detonates, after all
Also, most LAW-style weapons (Like the M136 AT4, IIRC) accelerate to top velocity very quickly. I think the AT4 finishes its burn before it’s out of the tube (It’s more of a recoiless rifle than a normal rocket though, from what I understand).
the LAW has been improved heavily since the vietnam era
when it was just a bit of a toy , maybe games and stuff
make it seem unrealistic I’m going to look for that link
says a LAW can kill a T-80 from a frontal shot
oh and the Apache has a 30mm cannon btw and the A-10 would go for shots at the rear
All of the M1s with 105mm guns have been withdrawn from service.
The US Army does have tanks with 105mm guns; the M60A3. These are used by “OPFOR” (Opposing Force) Battalions. They “fight” according to Soviet doctrine.
The AA gun you refer to is the M163. It has been retired.
Note the airborne there. If you take the A-10s cannon and mount it on a ground vehicle, it would be largely ineffective against tanks. The reason for this: from the air, the aircraft can maneuver easily to hit the top and rear of a tank, where the armor is very thin. On the ground, you’re much more likely to meet the front and sides, which a mere 30mm gun of any type will have no hope of penetrating. It’s also overkill for ground use on lighter vehicles: you don’t need that high of a rate of fire (whereas aircraft do, just to ensure a hit)
As for the answer, Phoenix has it. The effort to make and field an effective AT gun would be silly when you could use ATGMs instead, which are much easier to move and generally more effective. An AT gun is basically a stationary installation, and stationary objects don’t last long at all on the modern battlefield.
But I can’t resist this:
Not quite This is another popular myth, one that people think has been “proven” from Desert Storm. All that was proven there was that it was proof against weaponry twenty to forty years older than it…the same weaponry it was built to defeat. This is rather a given. Going up against contemporary weapons, the M1 is far less than “invulnerable”
Bit of a hijack, hope no one minds. I have a vague idea of the following, but I would like some clarification.
Can someone please explain clearly (and give me the current US weaponry fielded in each category where applicable) to me the differences between the following:
A Tank
An APC
Cavalry
Amoured Cavalry
Mechanised Infantry
This is another popular myth, one that people think has been “proven” from Desert Storm. All that was proven there was that it was proof against weaponry twenty to forty years older than it…the same weaponry it was built to defeat. This is rather a given. Going up against contemporary weapons, the M1 is far less than “invulnerable”