Timeline for Is the A-10's cannon effective against tanks?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 17, 2019 at 23:49 | comment | added | T.J.L. | @Sean More powerful engines are heavier, too. As is the suspension to support all that extra weight. It's a balancing act. Rest assured that the military industrial complex has taken all of these factors into consideration when designing combat equipment... within the government's requirements and budgets, anyway. | |
| Jul 17, 2019 at 23:46 | comment | added | Vikki | @T.J.L.: So lighten it in some other way, like having it carry less ammo (a higher ammo capacity won't help you if it means you have to skimp on the armour and get blown up as a result), or simply give it a more powerful engine. | |
| Jul 17, 2019 at 23:44 | comment | added | T.J.L. | @Sean Weight - something has to give somewhere. Modern warfare is generally a combined arms affair. Tanks have air support to deal with things like that. | |
| Jul 17, 2019 at 20:43 | comment | added | Vikki | Given the threat posed by air attack, why don't modern tanks have thick armour on the top as well as the sides? | |
| Jul 17, 2019 at 14:18 | comment | added | Therac | This is the correct answer. Tanks don't have more than 30-40 mm of armor on top. This armor isn't anywhere as sophisticated as frontal protection, and is either just steel or steel backed by a bit of lightweight composite material (fiberglass, aramid). 30mm AP rounds can penetrate MBT top armor. | |
| Mar 7, 2019 at 1:38 | comment | added | ChrisW | I haven't seen that video -- I've only ever seen videos of obsolete hulks of tanks being shot at, with debris and so on flying around, but without details of the damage. But perhaps you're right, various modern anti-armour munitions try to use Top attack. Effective against a "main battle tank" seems to me to be quite a tall claim though. | |
| Mar 7, 2019 at 1:21 | history | answered | John K | CC BY-SA 4.0 |