Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rcaf_777
I don't see the need for AT guns when there are more portable systems like the Swedish Carl Gustav, RPG-7/9 or the US one shot disposal series like the M-72 or the Dragoon. These systems are easier to conceal use a two man crew versus three for four AT Gun not mention that the crew and easy shoot and scoot on foot or with small vehicle.
On other not I’m an ex tow crewman and it takes one or two minutes to change a missile not several, and I’m sure if you under fire it would less.
|
I can see several good reasons. I'm not sure about this but I would expect AT gun round to be easier to manufacture than HOT, TOW, SS-4 Spandrell... AT round would be in short supply but missiles would have become a memory. RPG and carl gustav rounds will certainly be still available but I don't see how the US army would get replacement for their disposable M-72 (I'll rather be in the Marines).
Moreover, you need less training to fire an AT gun than to use a guided missile (IMO, correct me if I'm wrong). Again RPG and Carl Gustav are a different matter. In addition, an AT gun needs less maintenance.
Then, AT guns are great on well prepared defensive position and they can be used at much longer range or for other purpose such as regular artillery. In a cantonment organization they have their place. By the way trained AT gun crew in WWII were known to fire 4-6 round in a minute. I remember seeing a report on an M1 Abrams disabled (not destroyed) by an S-60 57mm gun used in AT role at Baghdad (2003).