Re: GUNS: Anti-Missle systems for tanks and other vehickles..

From: James Rogers (
Date: Sun Jun 25 2000 - 14:12:11 MDT

On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, S.J. Van Sickle wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jun 2000, James Rogers wrote:
> > Also, if I am not mistaken, some of the missile systems will engage the
> > last "good" target coordinate if a catastrophic failure of the control
> > system is detected, kind of like a dead man switch. In other words,
> > without a head the missile may still be moving towards the last
> > known target position, but without target location updates.
> Just the expensive stuff the zoomies get. The cheap stuff us
> ground-pounders got needed active guidance the whole way (TOW 2, which I'm
> pretty sure is still in use).

My unit was light infantry, so we didn't have any anti-armor capability
(and little access to support as well). Therefore our primary defense
against armor was traveling in terrain that armor has difficulty
traversing. Actually, due to the specialized nature of my unit's mission,
we typically had enough explosive with us (and the know-how) to make life
very unpleasant for armor in the sub-optimal (for armor) terrain that we
typically worked in.

I don't think armor is likely to become outdated any time soon.
Battlefields factors will still be mobility, guidance/fire control
capability, hardness/armor, firepower, and logistics requirements. A
modern military needs many different tools that are optimized for
different types of battlefield environments, and the MBT adds a useful and
unique feature set to the toolbox. However, in cases of decisive air
superiority by either side, the necessity of the tank becomes
significantly diminished.

-James Rogers

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:30 MDT