Why are tanks still sitting ducks in front of the aircraft?

Tanks have always been sitting ducks when being attacked by aircraft. The situation got worse after the invention of anti-tank missiles which could be fired from both ground attack aircraft such as A-10, Su-25, or from helicopters such as AH-64. In most cases, even the most advanced Main Battle Tanks could do absolutely nothing against an air attack besides trying to hide and lay down smoke screen.

Why nobody is trying to arm the tanks to deal with the threat from the air?
I know some tanks can fire small missiles from their main guns, and these missiles are said to be able to bring down choppers, but have you ever heard of a single case of a chopper being downed by a tank? I haven't. Tanks don't even have the radar to track and lock onto an aircraft, let along attack it accurately.

I mean, how hard is it to install something similar to what's on a mobile AA onto a tank? A Gatling guns, and a few real AA missiles even just short ranged missiles? So tanks won't be sitting ducks but instead can be a threat to low flying aircraft especially choppers? Adding a data link to allow tanks to share the readings from radars nearby could be helpful too.

 

My data base is, alas, limited regarding contemporary weapons systems. I know more, but still not enough, about 'Cold War' systems. The Soviets did have AFVs which addressed AAA, the ZSU23-4. It did have radar as I recall.

 

The problem is that most attack helicopters can launch anti-tank missiles at a tank before the tank crew can see it coming. It is all about who detects who first and who gets into weapon's range first. Choppers always come out on the top when compare to the tank.

Not to mention that choppers are more maneuverable even if a tank has fired at it. Good luck for a tank to get out of the way of a guided anti-tank missile.

That's why I said tanks need data link to share the information of nearby radars in order to see the choppers coming.
What's more important is I believe the tanks need a smaller version of CIWS as their air defense assets instead of the outdated .50 cal. When was the last time a tank's .5 cal shot down an aircraft?

 

While I agree that a well balanced military force should have their own choppers and mobile AA units covering their tanks, I still think it is a good idea to install something on the tanks to allow them have a chance against the enemy aircraft on their own.

Current MBTs have no real effective way against incoming missiles other than pop up some smoke grenades and hope the missile miss or bounce off the armor.

Even with air support and anti-air support, the tanks are still sitting ducks when being fired upon by an enemy missile. They can really use a CIWS to defend themselves against incoming missiles. With a CIWS, they can defend against any missiles not just the missiles from an aircraft, but also from other ground based vehicles and even the portable AT missiles from infantry.

Not to mention that it is quite impossible to always have air cover for the tanks 100% of the time. The air support has to return to base for refuel/rearm sometimes. There has to be gap between two sorts.

Mobile AA could attempt to keep up with the tanks, but they will always tail behind the tanks and thus the possibility of falling behind is always there. These Mobile AA units must have greater weapon's range than the enemy aircraft or the tanks at the front line are still cannon fodders.

To depend on infantry's shoulder launch AA missiles to cover tanks from aircraft/missile attack is not convincing. Infantry has even less field of vision than the tanks. Shoulder launch missiles require the enemy aircraft being within visual range at least, and we have been through this about aircraft and launch their AT missiles from pretty far away.

 

I didn't mean to put a full sized naval CIWS on a MBT. It should be a downsided smaller version of the same weapon. After all, AT missiles are smaller than anti-ship missiles. Thus a smaller version should work just fine.

MBTs have horsepower of 1,500 or above. A few extra tons of weight shouldn't be a problem.
Besides, CIWS should be pretty much automatic, it doesn't need manual work from the crew.

Not to mention that since Mobile AA systems can carry AA missiles just fine, why shouldn't the MBTs? Just reduce the number of missiles since it still needs its primary weapon.

 

Im going to have to agree with aghart. Our current tactics for armored units are quite sound in my opinion. On the modern battleground the layers of interoperability is insane to say the least. I believe armored vehicles are well protected from most air threats covered between CAPs and mobile AA. Recently the biggest threat to armored crew have been IEDs and shoulder carried missiles and protective measures for the crews are constantly being tested. This is how we now have reactive armour on MBTs and other armored vehicles, to lessen if not stop the penetration of these projectiles. Unfortunately until we have unmanned vehicles in the field we will always have losses in our forces and it is almost impossible to protect everyone from everything. Its just a nasty cycle of improvement, you get better armor so we try to get better ammo to penetrate it or vice versa.

 

It used to be hard to spot ground vehicles from the air back in the old days (ex: WWII), but it is no longer the case today. Tanks generate lots of heat. Their heat signature can be used to spot, track, and target by the aircraft.

You guys seem to think it is easy for a tank to shoot down a chopper. Please list some real examples of such cases. Choppers will always spot tanks before the tanks spot the choppers. Choppers also have longer weapons' range than tanks. It is why attack helicopters are considered one of the best anti-tank weapons.

In 1991 the First Gulf war for example, thousands of Iraqi tanks were destroyed by AH64 and A-10. How did the air defense work for them? I don't recall a single chopper was shot down by a tank during that war. Very few were shot down by other weapons (aircraft, AA missiles).

 

On the modern battlefield the battle is no longer AFV verses Helo. It is defensive weapons systems verses offensive weapons systems. The problem is not a lone AFV facing a lone Helo, but an array of sophisticated electronic command and control facing perhaps an equal or superior command and control system. It is the superior technology which today dominates the field, and very often dictates who lives and who dies.

It is not so much a lone helo anymore, searching and probing for a lone AFV, but the Eyes in the Sky (Drones, Radar-domed aircraft, satalites, etc.) ferreting out the AFV while remaining out of range can send this data to helos while they are remaining out of sight. Then with speed and manuverablity they can hop onto the battlrfield, launch tank-killer weapons and hop back behind protective hills often before AFV crews can react.

Read the literature on modern sophisticated electronic battlefield. Even the non-classified material paints a dismal picture for AFVs against a superior technology force. This is why the US wins on a head-to-head battlefield and anyone who wishes to have a chance to win doesn't use "conventional" weapons and tactics.

 

@aghart,
Are you assuming the aircraft won't have the warning system beeping when a tank has locked onto it? They will know before the tank open fire, and since the distance is several thousand meters, it will take a few seconds for the projectile to hit. In those a few seconds, the aircraft can take evasive maneuvers and other countermeasures. Unlike tanks, aircraft can maneuver fast. And if the tank used a missile from its gun instead of a shell, then other countermeasures such as flare and jamming will work too.

While I can't confirm that all aircraft can only engage a single tank at a time, I am pretty sure A-10 is more than capable of attacking multiple targets in a single formation in a single pass. AH64 is capable of carrying 16 Hellfire anti-tank missiles. It is hard to imagine it can only fire one at a time.

One of the friendly fire incident during the First Gulf War was an A-10 attacked a British armored formation and destroyed 2 armors.

 

Excellent discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Liars-T...=1423492957&sr=8-1&keywords=jerry jay carroll

 

I am no expert, but how can a tank not to lock onto a chopper before firing?
1. Unless the tank is stationary, the gun barrel will move up and down as it goes through rough terrain. It requires the lock on and stabilizer system to keep the tank pointing at the same object.
2. A chopper is moving, and it is highly maneuverable. Just how can a tank hope to shoot down a moving chopper with manual aiming?
3. You mentioned laser rangefinder. A lot of tanks and choppers today have warning system against enemy laser rangefinder/aiming systems.

Ok, once again I don't know the details since I am no military tech expert.
Choppers and ground attack fixed wing aircraft are known as better tank destroyers than tanks themselves. It is not the other way around. Tanks are obviously better at knocking out other tanks than shooting down aircraft.

 

Imagine if you would a man in a window firing at a moving target. Does he fire at the target? If he does it is likely he will miss, because the target is moving. That gunner should have fired at where the target will be when his bullets reach the target. This is called deflection shooting. It was somethng taught to WWII era gunners by extensive training and skeet-shooting.

Like skeet helos can be very swift. They can dodger, veer, jig, dance, slow and speed. And they can drop flares. A wise helo pilot knows not to fly straight and level for more than a few seconds when times get dangerous.