Missiles on tanks?

last SG · 2002-10-18T12:40:52+00:00

HEAT don't work very well on massed troops lah... an IDF "consultant" actually observed one of our exercises and the rambos who thought they could start off...

tankee1981 SG

I have come to notice that the Americans have mounted TOW anti-tank missiles(I think so but can't be sure) on their Bradley IFVs. Also in sgforums I have come across people proposing that we mount the locally produced SPIKE anti-tank missiles to be mounted on our Bionixs or maybe on our new MBTs replacing the Tempests. Some options to fire missile from tanks have come to my mind.One is to mount external launchers by the sides of the turret and another one is to fire them from the Main Gun. I am not sure about the feasibility of these two ideas.Fixing launchers on the turret or on the sides have its problems. Such as being much more prone to enemy fire , the problem of reloading while on the move and the recoil of the missile launch. The firing of a missile from the Main Gun will not be possible unless its a smooth-bore gun,which have the problem of shorter range. Anyway I am not sure if it is possible to fire missiles from the Main Gun as I dun think I have seen or heard any examples.If you guys have any links or pics pls kindly contributed. Please comment on my views.Thanks Smile

CX SG

Originally posted by tankee1981:
The firing of a missile from the Main Gun will not be possible unless its a smooth-bore gun,which have the problem of shorter range. Anyway I am not sure if it is possible to fire missiles from the Main Gun as I dun think I have seen or heard any examples.If you guys have any links or pics pls kindly contributed. Please comment on my views.Thanks Smile

thats old news... the M-551 Sheridan in service with the US 82nd airborne division has always been able to fire missiles from its main gun.

the Sheridan has a 152mm rifled tube. It is able to fire both 152mm HEAT rounds AND missiles.

The missile does not engage the riflings. The gun tube has a keyway slot which the missile engages to keep it from spinning.

not much recoil in missiles to my knowledge... the americans seem to have more complaint with the 152mm rounds cos its so big while the tank is so light. it lifts the entire front of the tank into the air every time they fire it and they gotta check their fire control systems to see if its still working after that...

CX SG

double post

Joe Black SG

Other good examples of ATGM-armed turrets including the Italian Dardo IFV:

See: http://www.army-technology.com/projects/dardo/index.html

I can't see why ST Engg could not integrate Spikes unto the BX turrets. It will give them good AT capability when needed. I'm not suggesting that BX should then start engaging MBTs but like unto the US Army Calvary doctrine, they are there for self-protection against MBTs. I'm pretty sure that the armoured recon community 46 SAR(?) would love this idea.

Joe Black SG

Other ATGM armed platform including the Russian

BTR-80 armoured personnel carrier armed with the Kliver missile and gun turret:

Piranha/LAV-25:

UK Warrior:

tankee1981 SG

Well thanks for the info but what about the prospect of having missiles fired from our new MBTs? Very Happy

Joe Black SG

Well, other than the Sheridan, the Western countries really did not produce ATGMs that could be fired from the tank main guns. Only the Russians have consistently produce tanks that fire missiles from the main gun. The Russian guns are design to ignite a missile rockets, whereas most western guns are not designed to do that. It is definitely possible to modify, say a smoothbore 105mm or 120mm to do that, but there are no current missiles that have been test fitted into one of these calibre guns. The closest is M551 Sheridan 152mm.

I don't see the needs to armed a MBT with Spike but a new light tank for SAF - maybe.

I would also like to see the BX chassis carry a turreted mortor launcher such as the LAV Armoured Mortar System(AMS). This coupled with a M113 armed with the new ST Kinetic rapid fire 120mm mortor will be real good close support SP arty for the armoured division.

Just my 2 cents

kY|e-_-o SG

i would rather see CARPET installed on our bionix...
imagine FAE rockets rainin on u..hehee Mr. Green

CARPET is primarily used to clear mines atm i think...

CX SG

i agree... its redundant. the main gun of an MBT is already supposed to be able to take out most classes of tank armour if the proper rounds are issued... why overload it or complicate the gun design by making it fire missiles?

better to have a really well engineered main gun that does its job really well than to have a cock up fusion that does neither properly.

arming IFVs and APCs with missiles will greatly enhance their survivability if they encounter tanks.

tankee1981 SG

Will there come a day where ATGM will take over tank rounds? I mean given the accuracy of those missiles will give a major advantage over the enemy. Maybe that one day the MBTs will merely be Anti-tank missile launchers! I think it will be some what similar to the aircraft where the missiles take over the cannons as the main weapons carried. Any comments guys? Very Happy

tankee1981 SG

Anza Andy SG

I don't think so.
A tank with a gun can have 40-60 round, missiles tank the most around 8 round.

CX SG

Missiles are EXPENSIVE! Mr. Green

so no... really not a good idea. tanks don't just take out tanks... a tank round is just as effective on bunkers and in certain cases, as fire support.

u can use a missile on a bunker, but its really quite difficult to justify using a several thousand dollar missile when u could've used a much cheaper tank round to the same effect.

i don't even wanna go into using missiles for fire support Mr. Green simply not economical.

its just like the previous stage of naval development... missile armed cruisers and destroyers instead of battlships... year right... sure, good for sinking enemy ships, but that also means they can't use ships to provide strong firepower to support groud ops anymore... except with aircraft carriers, but thats really another story... u don't see any fighting ships out there with ONLY missiles do you? same logic...

so i think there has to be a balance... can't throw out the old everytime something new comes along.

LeFire SG

Several reasons why guns are still in use...

1.) Note with main-gun launching systems. Missiles have delicate electronics... meaning that the powerful recoil of a heavy tank gun can knock the sensitive calibration out of the window.

2.) Missiles are expensive... as CX has explained.

3.) Missiles can be decoyed or destroyed in mid-flight... a 120mm sabot round will ignore flares, chaff and possible Vulcan-type anti-missile miniguns to score on the bad guy.

4.) Missiles are limited to HEAT and HESH type warheads. HEAT penetration capability depends on diameter of the shaped charge, direction of the shaped charge, and number of warheads... meaning that there is going to be a point where the warhead is just too thick to be practical. The sabot round penetration power depends on velocity and angle of strike. And the tank gun allows you to use HEAT and HESH too!

5.) Missiles bring less good-stuff (warhead payload) to the bad guy. That's because they need space for propellant (which needs to be hauled by the missile in flight). The tank shell (once in flight and un-saboted) is 100% full of happiness and joy headed for the bad guy.

Sidenote: Btw... HEAT and HESH don't perform well in rifled barrels... The spin actually diminishes their pentration power. So you need free-floating driving bands when shooting HEAT and HESH... whcih sometimes still get stuck when fired in a fouled barrel! That is why the Americans chose to use 120mm smoothbores in their M1A1 and M1A2's. The Brits stuck with rifled barrels in their Challenger 2's, preferring the longer range and accuracy (debatable).

Why missiles then?

The one really good point for missiles: They can be adjusted in mid-flight. Which means two things... You can still get the target despite a lousy initial aim, and you can run away if the missile is fire and forget! Very Happy

Shotgun SG

I don't understand how HEAT or HESH rounds can be weakened by barrels. Can explain? From my understanding, HEAT rounds don't penetrate by pure kinetic energy, but by explosive kinetic energy.

And why would smoothbore barrels have a shorter range than rifled barrels? If the tank is firing a tube launched missile, then shouldnt the range be equal to that of the missile? And if you're talking about firing SABOT rounds at a tank using a smoothbore barrel, again, the Germans and Yanks have proved you wrong. The M256 barrel on the Abrams can kill tanks above 2km with APFSDS. Beyond 3km, I'll stick to missiles. In anycase, not like we will have 3km of open ground to shoot enemies at.

In the case of the Sheridian, I still feel its a very potent vehicle, worthy of at least a case study. A 152mm gun, can be paradropped, talk about firepower when you need it. I'd love to see the Sheridian do a "one hot minute" on any MBT and watch it fry.

Finally, give the Bionix a break. Its still new, and I'm sure they're gonna put some form of anti-armor weaponry on it. Its still relatively new when compared to vets like the Bradley and M113 w/ "CherryPicker"

LeFire SG

According to what I've researched, HEAT and HESH can be weakened if the projectile is spinning...

For HEAT, the shaped-charge HEAT jet needs time to form... If the projectile is spinning when the shaped charge detonates, the jet (which is mostly gas) tends to scatter more. For HESH, the same thing happens, spreading the same amount of HE over a larger area and reducing the explosive power/armour area affected (thus reducing chances of a big piece of spall being detached from the interior).

Smoothbores are supposedly less accurate than rifles. Same principle as muskets versus rifles... spinning-stablises the (solid) round and makes it go further.

And yes, I was talking about firing shells from smoothbores, not missiles when I referred to range. That M256 120mm Rheinmetall gun on the M1A1 Heavy Armour (served in Gulf War) happens to have a very nice targeting computer with wind, temp, etc. the whole works... thus enabling a nice first-shot strike at long range. And the fins also help out in stablising the round (you're talking about a long thin heavy metal dart... think medieval arrow.)

Finally, my posts ain't about proving anyone wrong... We're all mature here, and I'm not trying to propose a whip-it-out-and-slam-table competition. So relax mate! Mr. Green

Joe Black SG

BTW, have you guys seen the spec of Merkava 4 - very impressive. They can shoot down helos too with high probabilities.

They must be equipped with a very smart fight control system to detect the speed and heading of the helos in order to fire a round to hit them.

LeFire SG

I’m not that up to date with the Merkava 4… Is the anti-helo round a shotgun-type canister weapon? (Also known as a Beehive round)

tankee1981 SG

its just like the previous stage of naval development... missile armed cruisers and destroyers instead of battlships... year right... sure, good for sinking enemy ships, but that also means they can't use ships to provide strong firepower to support groud ops anymore... except with aircraft carriers, but thats really another story... u don't see any fighting ships out there with ONLY missiles do you? same logic...

I think you have got me wrong. I am not proposing that the ATGM will replace the Main Gun of MBTs. What I am saying that the missiles can be use to complement the Main Gun. As seen in the missile cruisers and fighter jets. Either the tank rounds or the missiles will be the main armament. Yes, I agree that the missiles are expensive but the missiles have certain capabilities which the tank rounds do not have. Missiles can engage targets beyong visual range, maybe they can be programmed to fly round obstacles such as hills and knolls. They can be use in hunting packs similar to the Apaches where other tanks can act as the targeting platform for the launch of missiles. I personally think that the future of our combined arms armoured brigade can include ATGM-firing platforms(maybe a Bionix?) supporting the conventional MBTs and IFVs. In this way the short-comings of one can be nullified by another. Thanks Very Happy

Shotgun SG

The beehive round... I remember some US Army tankees talking about it at military.com According to them, its been scrapped.

It then launched into this huge debate on how to take out helos, with HEAT or SABOT? One guy says, he'd use SABOT, cos he'd rather be carrying a SABOT, in case he encounters a tank. The other guy argues that the SABOT won't really damage the helo, and would punch a neat hole through that might not damage anything. Tanker A then argues by saying that the massive over-pressure generated by the Mach 2.+ round cause massive damage to a helo. Then Tanker B, says that Helos's being aircraft are designed to take pressure... and it went on and on and on.

Finally they both agreed that, they probably won't encounter Helo's with their pants down anyway, so the Anti Air section will have to end up taking care of it anyway.

Back to the topic. I believe most AT missiles have the ability to punch through most of the Tanks that operate in this region. Be they SM1s, or PT-91s or whatever. They aren't Abrams, or Leo2s. Just to be sure, stick with tandem warheads.