Hows that thing hold up under this?
An Army analysis after WWII found that only 14% of tank rounds fired were fired at another tank. Most of the rest were against stationary targets and personnel. While vehicles are great, they are not as flexible as a two man portable anti tank rocket team.
I don’t love the headline. To me, a “Destroyer” is a big ship that supports a bluewater navy. I do understand the concept of “tank destroyer”. But they didn’t put that in the headline.
The counter is, eventually, a radar jammer.
Or maybe something simpler.
Or maybe one of the current active protection systems can be pointed up.
Granted there is a counter for the counter, or will be.
The arms race never ends.
I have always wondered what is the difference between a tank destroyer and a tank. Looking at WWII models they look just like a tank.
Stug Life..
Hows that thing hold up under this?
Keeper of the Tread Head Ping List: (Just a bunch of tankers)
Most of all, the design seems to be affordable and good enough to caution the Russians, who share a border with Poland and a bitter history.
I recall reading somewhere that during the Battle of Stalingrad the Soviets obliterated an advancing German tank company with a volley of Katusha rockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhd1d2sW_3I
Bofors STRIX - Anti Armour Mortar Round
IIrc, that particular system was operational early ‘90s.
If so, then I’m fair sure improvements wouldn’t be too terrible difficult by now.
A platoon of mortars guiding in on tanks from above to, at first, soak up the defensive systems and then start producing casualties, with the infantry adding in their missiles once the defensive systems stop firing off...
This also makes me wonder...
The Excalibur system for artillery. Shouldn’t be hard to modify that for armor seeking. 155mm batteries, battalions or regiments saturating a grid square with anti-armor seeking warheads?
I was an 0351/52 in the Corps. Tankers called us grunts “crunchies”. We called them “crispy critters”.