Why didn't ATGM tanks enter service and eventually replace normal tanks or at least be used in a tank destroyer role?

Why didn't ATGM tanks enter service and eventually replace normal tanks or at least be used in a tank destroyer role? Were Cold War ATGMs that unreliable or easily defeated by ERA? Seems like a good idea to have smaller, lighter tanks with highly capable guided missiles. I know some Russian tanks can fire ATGMs out of their main cannon but that's a hardly used feature, seems like nothing yet beats a conventional high caliber cannon.

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The sound of the cannon increases morale.

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why didn't ATGM tanks enter service and eventually replace normal tanks or at least be used in a tank destroyer role?
    ATGMs were used primarily in the TD role
    the M60A2 was an attempt to make a missile-MBT but obviously failed to do so

    >Were Cold War ATGMs that unreliable or easily defeated by ERA?
    ATGMS are extremely bulky, expensive weapons that have sub-sonic muzzle velocities
    this means that you carry very few shots and you cant go around wasting those shots against every target
    its also very possible for the enemy to notice your missile in flight and return fire and destroy you before your missile even hits

    > Seems like a good idea to have smaller, lighter tanks with highly capable guided missiles.
    they are a good idea
    as a supporting arm for regular tanks

    > seems like nothing yet beats a conventional high caliber cannon.
    which is why people still use a smoothbore cannon

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >its also very possible for the enemy to notice your missile in flight and return fire and destroy you before your missile even hits

      bullshit i've never heard of that happening. only fast enough reaction is to move, MAYBE a friendly vic can spot and return fire as the target vehicle is being engaged. but not one single vehicle has ever spotted ATGM, located the source of fire AND counter attacked before the missile hit.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >a friendly vic can spot and return fire as the target vehicle is being engaged
        that's the idea

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    High velocity guns proved to be more effective.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sheridan sucked, and then that was that.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    1) most of the time, tanks aren't intended to engage other tanks, that's just one of the jobs they do. For the other jobs, a big, direct fire cannon is still necessary.
    2) cannons that fire atgms suck, and atgms that are fired out of cannons suck. The M551 Sheridan was an example of why they don't do this.
    3) they got ATGM tank destroyers by putting TOWs on Bradleys plus you have an infantry squad in the back. Bradleys killed more T-72s thyan Abrams did in Desert Storm.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >most of the time, tanks aren't intended to engage other tanks, that's just one of the jobs they do
      in WW2, sure
      but during the cold war, tank vs tank combat was the main focus
      >cannons that fire atgms suck, and atgms that are fired out of cannons suck
      GLATGMs do have a specific purpose, which is better accuracy when engaging at maximum range
      not necessarily to score kills but to act as a long hand to keep the enemy far away
      > Bradleys killed more T-72s thyan Abrams did in Desert Storm.
      brads killed more AFVs in total, but not tanks
      heaviest tank on tank action was with M1s, bradley kills were mostly against other IFVs like BMPs
      and keep in mind, there were way more bradleys than M1s in-theatre

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Why didn't ATGM tanks enter service and eventually replace normal tanks
        expense, effectiveness, role
        >or at least be used in a tank destroyer role?
        because it's generally too expensive and over-specialised to field a specialised ATGM carrier; the solution NATO adopted was to hang a couple of ATGMs on basically every front-line vehicle in existence

        >but during the cold war, tank vs tank combat was the main focus
        and during the cold war, the tank gun was still superior to the tank atgm as the main anti-tank weapon

        Not as flexible, much more expensive. Its a waste to use an ATGM on a pillbox when an HE round will do. Thats not to say that they shouldn't enter service, but that's the reason. A javelin missile might be 80 grand now, but it was also 80 grand in 2002, so the missile has gotten 60% cheaper in terms of inflation; since 80 grand in 2002 was equivalent to ~130k. The missile spam you're seeing in Ukraine was only really economically feasible in the last decade, and a lot of it is byproduct countries offloading old stocks onto ukraine; so its not a circumstance that will be repeatable.

        >A javelin missile might be 80 grand now
        it's not
        that said, an ATGM is still roughly 10 times more expensive than an anti-tank KE penetrator

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but during the cold war, tank vs tank combat was the main focus
        For NATO, and only sort of. The primary role of tanks for the soviets was infantry support, that's why they relied on numbers and kept old tanks in service for so long.
        And the primary anti-tank weapon for NATO was airpower, particularly in the late cold war that why the Americans start fielding Apaches and A10s and things like that.
        But that said, certainly NATO tanks were designed with the tank destroyer role in mind, the Abrams in particular relying almost completely on it's machine guns to engage infantry.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The primary role of tanks for the soviets was infantry support
          soviets used tanks the same way NATO did, as a tool for maneuver
          and since both weapons are for maneuver, their primary engagements would be against each other, hence why both sides ended up using APFSDs by the 80s, they were both expecting to field their tanks against enemy tanks

          soviets did use tanks for infantry support in motorized units, but these were not the primary weapon on the battlefield
          what would have been used for the aforementioned breakthrough and maneuver was the mechanized unit, which was similiar to the NATO counterpart where infantry supported the tanks rather than vice-versa

          so while not specifically for fighting enemy tanks, enemy tanks would have been their primary opponent as a side effect of the sides respective doctrine

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No that's not true. So the soviet idea grew out of their experiences with WW2 against the Germans, the famous Stalin maxim "quantity has a quality all of it's own" which is why we continually saw this really good leading edge tanks that only got short orders, from the IS-3 all the way up to the T-14, and a dozen other examples along the way, it's pretty much been the way they've always done things - the invent the best but then build something that costs less.

            The idea being that winning 1-on-1 isn't the goal, the goal is to simply outnumber the opponent on a wide front, so while the opponent has to send their good tanks to fight your tanks (the Tigers at Budapest for example) you'll always have extra tanks to fight where the oppponent doesn't have any. And if you look at where the soviets were planning to fight, Poland, Northern Germany, the Benelux, France, big flat plains, not a lot of choke points (the Fulda gap notwithstanding), NATO tanks would be effective where they were available but wouldn't be available everywhere.

            And if you look at the late war NATO tanks, particularly the Abrams and the Challenger 2, you can see that was very well understood with those tanks being optimized for fighting in a hull down position and/or during a fighting retreat. The slope of the armor, the depression of the gun, the position of the CITV, all of it. Where the T-72 is pretty much designed to YOLO across low ground because "if we all attack at once they can't kill us all fast enough." Typical of the soviet mindset.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >So the soviet idea grew out of their experiences with WW2 against the Germans, the famous Stalin maxim "quantity has a quality all of it's own" which is why we continually saw these really good leading edge tanks that only got short orders, from the IS-3 all the way up to the T-14 and a dozen other examples along the way, but then big orders of a cheaper but less capable tank. It's pretty much been the way they've always done things - the invent the best but then build something that costs less.
              I need coffee.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The primary role of tanks for the soviets was infantry support
          The primary role of tanks for the USSR was to exploit the breakthrough, NOT infantry support, which is why tanks were formed organically into regiments with organic infantry support but most motor-rifle regiments did not have tanks organic to their TO&Es
          >the primary anti-tank weapon for NATO was airpower
          The primary anti-tank weapon for NATO was anything that could field an anti-tank weapon, which was why they pumped out a shitload of vehicles carrying everything that could possibly kill a tank, from ATGMs to guns to recoilless rifles
          >particularly in the late cold war that why the Americans start fielding Apaches and A10s
          See again: everything that could, was equipped to destroy tanks

          No that's not true. So the soviet idea grew out of their experiences with WW2 against the Germans, the famous Stalin maxim "quantity has a quality all of it's own" which is why we continually saw this really good leading edge tanks that only got short orders, from the IS-3 all the way up to the T-14, and a dozen other examples along the way, it's pretty much been the way they've always done things - the invent the best but then build something that costs less.

          The idea being that winning 1-on-1 isn't the goal, the goal is to simply outnumber the opponent on a wide front, so while the opponent has to send their good tanks to fight your tanks (the Tigers at Budapest for example) you'll always have extra tanks to fight where the oppponent doesn't have any. And if you look at where the soviets were planning to fight, Poland, Northern Germany, the Benelux, France, big flat plains, not a lot of choke points (the Fulda gap notwithstanding), NATO tanks would be effective where they were available but wouldn't be available everywhere.

          And if you look at the late war NATO tanks, particularly the Abrams and the Challenger 2, you can see that was very well understood with those tanks being optimized for fighting in a hull down position and/or during a fighting retreat. The slope of the armor, the depression of the gun, the position of the CITV, all of it. Where the T-72 is pretty much designed to YOLO across low ground because "if we all attack at once they can't kill us all fast enough." Typical of the soviet mindset.

          >No that's not true
          Nothing you're posting refutes the idea that a Soviet tank is built to kill a tank, or that NATO tanks are also built to kill tanks
          >the goal is to simply outnumber the opponent on a wide front
          Had that been the case they would have built fucktons of T-55s and left it at that, instead they continued building tanks ever more capable of killing other tanks.

          Again, nothing you're posting supports the idea that a Soviet tank is somehow an infantry support tank while a NATO tank is solely a tank destroyer. The concepts are non-exclusive.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Had that been the case they would have built fucktons of T-55s and left it at that, instead they continued building tanks ever more capable of killing other tanks.
            They did. IIRC the T-55 is the most produced tank in history despite being strictly inferior to the IS-7/T-10 which preceeded it, and the T-62 that succeeded it. It wasn't replaced as the soviet main unit until the T-72 which again was strictly inferior to the T-62 that preceded it and the T-80 that succeeded it.
            So it was, in fact, the case.

            As for the rest of your post you merely shift the goalposts from "primary role" to "only role" and pretending that's relevant to the conversation.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >So it was, in fact, the case.
              So why did they build the T-72 then if the T-55 was sufficient for the job, retard
              >you merely shift the goalposts from "primary role" to "only role"
              You're the fuckwit who thought that "infantry support" is somehow different from "killing tanks" in the first place

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >So why did they build the T-72
                Because it was cheaper than the T-62. Pay attention.
                >Infantry support and anti-tank are the same thing
                Okay retard.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >"The T-55 was good enough, that's why they built the T-62 and T-72"
                >"What should a tank do? I don't know, just get out there and support I guess"
                Mong

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Okay retard. You do you.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Because it was cheaper than the T-64

                FTFY

                - T-62 was a failed attempt to introduce an upgunned replacement for T-55 due to delays with T-64 and concerns about the introduction of the 105mm L7 creating a firepower disparity in favour of NATO tanks.
                - T-64 was the new hot bleeding edge supertank, turned out to have alot of teething issues becuase it was pushing the envelope too much, but became a seriously impressive MBT.
                -T-72 essentially started as an attempt to build a budget T-64, and eventually got loaded down with so many upgrades that it was about equivalent ot contemporary T-64 versions.
                -T-80 was their attempt for a next-gen T-64 with a turbine engine, but never really took off and managed to completely outperform contemporary T-64 and T-72 versions.
                -T-90 is literally just a deep-modernized T-72. T-90M is about the first you can argue to be a new tank, as it uses the T-90 hull and a completely new turret design.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T-62 is natural progression from 54 and o140, no mention of delays
                T-80 was attempt to fix 64's engine (via o219-1) Real next gen 64 would be boxer/molot/...
                T-90 is just third (after a and b) version of 72. Deep-modernized is as big propaganda as giving it a new name instead of 72__

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                T-64 had a lot of delays in development. That was the whole reason T-62 was created as a stopgap, to get something with more firepwoer than T-55 going. Which of course then fell apart when T-55 received new ammo that brought it back up to par with T-62.

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because the Drakon was literal shit

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Tanks need to do more than just anti tank.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ATGM is pretty cool but after modern fire control systems it doesn't really do much that the cannon of a main battle tank can't do cheaper.

    >ATGM goes slower than a sabot fired from a cannon
    >Missiles are significantly more expensive
    >When not facing other tanks a main battle tank can just fire HE at buildings or infantry with good effect
    >Missiles are bulkier and you can have less of them
    >A sabot has better penetration than the types of missiles that a man portable missile has and if you can't use the same missiles as your average anti-tank infantry then your cost-efficiency suffers

    I'm sure there are some marginal upsides but generally speaking they aren't that meaningful.

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not as flexible, much more expensive. Its a waste to use an ATGM on a pillbox when an HE round will do. Thats not to say that they shouldn't enter service, but that's the reason. A javelin missile might be 80 grand now, but it was also 80 grand in 2002, so the missile has gotten 60% cheaper in terms of inflation; since 80 grand in 2002 was equivalent to ~130k. The missile spam you're seeing in Ukraine was only really economically feasible in the last decade, and a lot of it is byproduct countries offloading old stocks onto ukraine; so its not a circumstance that will be repeatable.

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Ammo is cheaper and you can carry more of it with a cannon.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    russia still has missiles it can fire out of its tank guns. israel has that too
    so they just incorporated it into normal tanks if they were concerned about not having mobile ATGM vehicles nearby their tanks

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    if landing your shot require a longer time and less demanding on the launcher and launching platform, you are better off with more and lighter platform to ambush and get out before amour is needed.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Israel still uses them

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      those are retired i thought

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      retired

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Makes no sense, when you already have most of the tank just get the turret.

    ATGMS excell at being lightweight. You pair that with tank and cancel each others advantages. I'd rather ask why aren't there tank cannons on lighter platforms, like trucks or armoured SUVs.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >why aren't there tank cannons on lighter platforms, like trucks or armoured SUVs
      the recoil of firing its own weapon will flip anything wheeled under 30 tons

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      There are plenty of IFV's with tank turrets in production these days. The downside is that they don't have the armor of a main battle tank but the upside is that they are light enough to probably be airlifted.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >but the upside is that they are light enough to probably be airlifted.
        They aren't really, see pic related

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    infantry can carry atgms...
    tanks are short to medium range direct fire fighters - that's what thick armor is for - if you want to engage with indirect fire weapons (or over the horizon) you don't need all that armor -
    for that scenario mobility makes more sense...

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because Tanks are supposed to be frontline combatants meant to support an advance. Shells are cheaper compared to Missiles and a tank can carry loads of those. Plus a gun is more flexible and can handle a multitude of threats unlike a dedicated missile.

    ATGMs basically are the modern equivalent of Tank destroyers as many have . Sure they can they destroy enemy tanks & armor but when its your turn to attack, now what'll your Missile MBT do? Waste missiles on infantry and buildings lol?

    Besides why stick an atgm on a frontline vehicle when you can stick it on nimbler platforms like trucks and light armor.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because ATGMs aren't as versatile and take up more room

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Armor is very overrated. For all the weight of a MBT, only the front turret face can withstand a missile or main gun hit. For an ATGM carrier without a recoiling gun, they can just elevate the launcher and sensors (neither of which can be armored) and get same levels of survivability on the defense with very little armor at all. After all, on a MBT the gun or sensors are not armored either, and no one cares if an ATGM tube get shot up, it is disposable.

    As ATGM carriers are ill-suited for close range brawls due to low rate of fire, slow target acquisition speed, and inefficiency against light threats, while easily out range tank guns, a long range hull down application is logical and very survivable even on very cheap vehicles.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Most things that shoot at tanks are not armed with 120mm smoothbors with APFSDS rounds.

      You have bands of protection, most IFVs are protected against 50cals, while most APCs are protected only against small arms. That means a 20mm autocannon (or even the Kord 14.5mm which was designed pretty much for this exact reason) can penetrate the armor of those vehicles while being much more mobile, having a much higher rate of fire, and carrying much more ammunition.

      So you only really need the ATGMs and main guns for things that are armored well enough to resist autocannons, ie. MBTs.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Great Leader says: why not both!

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Might as well jam a lot of javelins in the back of an M113, mount the aiming module on a telescopic tower and connecting it to all the tubes.
    Dunno if anyone tried that during the cold war

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This vehicle ruins warthunder

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    An "ATGM Tank" would look like China's ZBD 04 AT Missile Carriers. It can only carry four missiles, and its weapon system is so bulky, the vehicle itself huge. And if it gets hit, thats 4 expensive missiles gone.

    Hence its only used as a tank destroyer as opposed to armored assault.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >It can only carry four missiles
      Your picture says eight.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That, and it also carries relaods in the hull. Though obviously reloading the launchers requires the crew to dismount.

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Things without big guns can't be a tank m-kay

Your email address will not be published.