Why are coalition forces bothering to stop and rig the abandoned Iraqi tanks for demolition with plastic explosives — a process that seems to take quite a while and endangers the people who do it? Why not simply blow them up with another tank or with artillary or mortar fire?
I’m guessing that plastic explosive is a) cheap b) safer and c) thorough.
Using munitions increases the chance of richochets or collateral damage. Not to mention those artillery rounds cost money and have to be shipped long distances.
You need to destroy certain key components, such as the breach assembly of the main gun, the secondary armament and other salvageable components. It is also important to destroy the same components on each, so they cant just take part “a” from one and bolt it to part “b” from another. You cant assure that this would be the case just doing a drive by shooting.
What Finagle said.
Indirect artillery and mortar fire doesn’t have the precision to destroy individual hard vehicles.
Plastic explosives are dirt cheap and thus easily available, anti-tank rounds cost more money than you can shake a stick at (plus the stick) and if you use them frivolously, you’ll probably run out when faced with tanks that shoot back.
Makes perfect sense.
Not to mention it saves wear and tear on your tanks, which do break down a lot. And you don’t have to clean the tank gun as frequently.