3 ms·

The soldier's anti-tank missile also has costs, and it usually misses or hits without destroying the tank (or taken out by anti-missile active defence). When yo

by yyyk 5y ago

The soldier's anti-tank missile also has costs, and it usually misses or hits without destroying the tank (or taken out by anti-missile active defence). When you add all these up, it turns out the tank/missile cost equation is close to balanced. The tank's problem is less that it's vulnerable to anti-tank missile, but its high visibility, now relatively weak weapons and vulnerability to air assets (which is also high visibility again).

hnaccy 5y ago
The claimed kill rate for Javalin in practice is over 90%. NLAWs are even cheaper and easier to use but don't know their estimated kill rate.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Against badly run T-72 tank divisions maybe. Against a modern tank with an active defence system and infantry cover? I strongly doubt it. There are more than a few known cases of tanks getting hit by Kornets and surviving and Javalin is contemporary.
chipsa 5y ago
Anti-missile active defense (Active Protection System) is still in it's infancy, especially with respect to tank based defenses. Many of them only work against direct attack, not top-attack missiles, and it's also common for them to effectively attack as giant shotguns to destroy the incoming target, which is bad for nearby infantry. They're also expensive, have sensors that must be maintained to be effective (which are sensors that can get shot at before the ATGM is launched), and can potentially be depleted in a specific sector of attack.
- yyyk 5y ago
  Active defence has limits, sure. There's a long dance between attack and defence. My point was that the tank isn't doomed there - if vulnerability to anti-tank missiles was the only issue, armies would research and deploy active defences everywhere and the tank would be important as it was. I think the problems are elsewhere. When infantryman can deploy offensive power outranging the canon, one needs to ask why have the tank when the infantryman requires so much less logistics. If say, the tanks could use a heavy mobile laser, than the equation would be different.

by yyyk 5y ago

hnaccy 5y ago

The claimed kill rate for Javalin in practice is over 90%. NLAWs are even cheaper and easier to use but don't know their estimated kill rate.

yyyk 5y ago
Against badly run T-72 tank divisions maybe. Against a modern tank with an active defence system and infantry cover? I strongly doubt it. There are more than a few known cases of tanks getting hit by Kornets and surviving and Javalin is contemporary.

chipsa 5y ago

Anti-missile active defense (Active Protection System) is still in it's infancy, especially with respect to tank based defenses. Many of them only work against direct attack, not top-attack missiles, and it's also common for them to effectively attack as giant shotguns to destroy the incoming target, which is bad for nearby infantry. They're also expensive, have sensors that must be maintained to be effective (which are sensors that can get shot at before the ATGM is launched), and can potentially be depleted in a specific sector of attack.

yyyk 5y ago
Active defence has limits, sure. There's a long dance between attack and defence. My point was that the tank isn't doomed there - if vulnerability to anti-tank missiles was the only issue, armies would research and deploy active defences everywhere and the tank would be important as it was. I think the problems are elsewhere. When infantryman can deploy offensive power outranging the canon, one needs to ask why have the tank when the infantryman requires so much less logistics. If say, the tanks could use a heavy mobile laser, than the equation would be different.