Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webstral
ATGM crews are somewhat less vulnerable because they (and their weapon) can get under cover quickly ande more easily than an AT gun crew and their weapon can.
|
Yes, the ATGM weapon system itself is usually smaller and easier to get under cover, but a hole is a hole - crew of either system can get in as easily as each other provided they don't mind leaving the gun exposed.
A properly prepared postion negates this issue and the AT gun may even be the better weapon from a prepared defensive - no backblast to worry about!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webstral
The second is that the trajectory of the ATGM can be corrected in-flight. Against the fast-moving tanks of the modern battlefield, this ability is a deal-maker.
|
So why aren't tanks armed with missiles then? A gun projectile travels MUCH faster than a missile, much faster than a tank can move - don't see too many 40+ tonne monsters dodging an incoming AP or HEAT round...
The ATGM usually has a significant firing signature - backblast isn't something you can hide very easily (although some rare systems are designed to minimise it as much as possible, the Armbrust being one).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webstral
In order to compensate for the high mobility of the enemy AFV, an AT gun probably would require some sort of targeting system.
|
Why? As stated above, tanks don't dodge supersonic projectiles very well. As long as the gunner knows what they're doing and leads the target, there shouldn't be any need for high tech electronic sighting systems, although they would certainly reduce the burden on the crew.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webstral
Such a system probably would be expensive and would in turn serve to justify turning a towed AT gun into an SP AT gun.
|
Negating the very idea of a cheap defensive weapon system.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webstral
The third is that it is much easier to make a TOW crew mobile while protecting them against shell fragments and small arms than is the case with an AT gun. ATGM crews have more flexibility than AT gun crews in that a TOW team can be loaded into a very modest vehicle and stay in the fight. The same is not true of the AT gun.
|
But mobility is not the role of the AT gun. They are intended for a prepared defensive position protecting the flanks and shoulders of the attack, and in Soviet doctrine, are a divisional asset (or at least brigade).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webstral
In order to make the AT gun fit with the highly mobile Western concept of war...
|
As you state, it doesn't fit the Western concept all that well. On the other hand, the Soviet model makes great use of them, even though they've primarily an offensive mindset.