Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chief Bones I don't have any real data on these weapons. From what I have been able to discover surfing the net, HOT turreted LAVs were rather thin skinned so far as an armored vehicle is concerned. They were subject to penetration and pingponging of shrapnel inside the vehicle compartment from a simple glancing blow from an armor piercing rocket or shell (45 degree to 90 degree). Hitting an open vision slot was not necessary to take them out. As far as how they would have fared against any of the armored vehicles we employed in Iraq, I have been unable to come across any definitive information. |
Dear Member,
Most vehicles fitted with an ATGW in the antitank role are thin skin or lightly armored (eg the Marine's Hummer with TOW and the M113 with the Norway's TOW turret. They are not intended to take direct hits. Only protection against aritllery air burst and near hits. They engage main battle tanks at extreme ranges and the further the range the less accurate the main cannon is. Yes hitting a completely exposed tank at 4000 to 5000 meter is possible for today's MBTs but not a target the width and length of a bath towel. ATGW missiles, unlike cannons, are accurate from the minumum range to their maximum range. And they use concealment and ambush and in most cases if possible hull down or they drive from the reverse slope to the top and fire and duck down before they can be engaged. The Marines could not figure it out in 1991. A Panhard/HOT vehicle dug in with just its small turret about the ground could have caused havoc at the various breaching points of the berms. And they could have engaged at night by just having a few dug in mortars to provide illumination. And at 5000 meters they would been extremely difficult to engage by tanks. The main tactic would have been massive artillery fire with air burst.
Jack E. Hammond