They are optimized for firing hypervelocity, low-caliber, high-density penetrators (like APFSDS without the sabot). So you would need a situation where the two roles - fighting tanks and fighting less hard targets - are better served by different weapons systems on the tank, not by different ammunition for one weapon or by different, complementary vehicle families. They all retain this role to various degrees. Historically, tanks were anti-infantry and anti-artillery weapons, not anti-tank weapons, while anti-tank was left to other systems (tank destroyers, towed anti-tank guns. The MBT added different main gun ammunition instead of a different main gun. (Modernization added/changed the secondaries.) The Merkava has more MGs and a smallish mortar.įor the IFV, the different target characteristics caused two different "main guns" - the TOW against a few very hard targets, the autocannon against medium-hard, more numerous targets. Critics complained that it was a jack of all trades and master of none.īy comparison, the M1 Abrams MBT has a main gun against enemy tanks and other distant, relatively large targets, a coaxial MG against troops, and a pintle-mounted MG against troops and some air targets. It is armed with TOW missiles against tanks, an autocannon against light armored vehicles, a coaxial MG against troops, and originally firing ports for small arms against troops. It might no longer be a tank as we know it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |