From: S.J. Van Sickle (steve@dsl.telocity.com)
Date: Sun Jun 25 2000 - 08:54:34 MDT
On Sat, 24 Jun 2000, Everitt Mickey wrote:
> engine flare from a shoulder launched wire-guided anti-tank missle and
> direct the tank's gun to it....the gun had a MUCH greater velocity than the
> missle...so shortly thereafter the missle became UN guided.....
Unlikely explaination. The soviet infantry anti-tank misssles, unlike the
American's, had seperate launchers and controllers. The missles were
controlled by a guy with a box and a joystick guiding the missle to the
target. The (expended) launcher could be a hundred meters away or more.
This is *very* hard to do acurrately, so likely the Isreali tank (if the
story is true at all) was just missed many times before it was hit. The
American wired guided missles are all one piece, and *much* easier to use
since, being in direct line with the tank and missle, all you have to do
is keep the crosshairs on target...the control box does the rest.
*They* have the problem you described above, and require a great amount of
testicular fortitude to use against a main battle tank. Bear in mind,
though, that visibility out of any tank is *terrible*. If they are busy
engaging another target at the time and the battlefield is very active,
chances are pretty good they won't see your launch.
> I've heard that the age of armor (tanks) is over with the invention of
> shoulder launched anti tank rockets....but is that true?
Not yet. They aren't (and never were) much use in urban or jungle
warfare, but aircraft have done much more to reduce the utility of tanks
than shoulder launched missles. If you have air superiority, or if it is
even seriously being contested, the tank is still the master of the battle
field.
Steve Van Sickle
1/11th Armored Cavalry Regiment
Fulda, West Germany
1985
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:29 MST