Towed AT systems have some important drawbacks vis-a-vis SACLOS ATGM. The first is that the unarmored AT system leaves its operators vulnerable to suppressive artillery fire. 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. 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. In order to compensate for the high mobility of the enemy AFV, an AT gun probably would require some sort of targeting system. Such a system probably would be expensive and would in turn serve to justify turning a towed AT gun into an SP AT gun. 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.
In order to make the AT gun fit with the highly mobile Western concept of war, the gun would have to be self-propelled for the same reasons that the artillery of mechanized formations is self-propelled and ATGM-equipped anti-tank vehicles are self-propelled. A self-propelled AT gun is a light tank or tank destroyer, depending on how one wants to use the label.
Mind, I'm not saying there isn't a place for an AT gun in the Western arsenals. Sited in a properly prepared fighting position, an AT gun of suitable caliber and range could do good service when covering a minefield or other obstacle with direct fire. I strongly suspect that the relative flexibility of the ATGM and the understandable desire of armies to standardize as much as possible led to the adoption of the ATGM over the AT gun. Still, by 2000 captured 100mm AT guns would be prized additions to NATO defenses.
Webstral
|