The problem with "let's take out a ship with an anti-tank missile" is that the overall design of what each kind of missile does is antithetical to how you want to break each target.
Consider the tank, or armored vehicle: small enclosed area, space is at a premium, men are no further than 1'-2' apart. You want a warhead that kills the target (and occupants) through shock and blast effect but also via penetration of armor and ignition of fuel and ammunition, all of which is also within 1' to 3' of each other and crew. For this, the shaped charge of an anti-tank munition is perfect.
Now consider a ship (anything larger than a 25'-er). Large open spaces. Crew, fuel and critical systems widely spread out. To kill this target, you must either use a huge system above the waterline (Harpoon, or on the Soviet side weapons too numerous to mention) or use shock and explosive effect underneath the waterline to break the main structures apart and induce deformation of the hull and therefore flooding. While multiple hits from, say, an AGM-65 above the waterline would be sufficient (it is, after all, a 500lb weapon with a not-inconsiderable HE warhead) to mission-kill a small craft, anything smaller just won't get the job done. You'll have extremely localized damage. And obviously you can't fire them beneath the waterline: they'll either detonate at the water or won't have enough explosive oomph to do anything when they do go off underneath.
__________________
THIS IS MY SIG, HERE IT IS.
|