Missiles vs Tank Guns: Why Guns are better!

Anti-Tank Guided Missiles (ATGM) instead of a regular tank gun? There were some projects like the M551 Sheridan and M60A2 that replaced the regular tank gun. Meanwhile the Soviets went for a regular tank gun that could also fire ATGMs, what are the benefits and drawbacks of missiles? Why didn't they prevail? How do missiles like the TOW, AT-3 Sagger, NLAW, Javelin and others compare to tank guns in capabilities, complexity, range and other factors?

Disclaimer: I was invited by the Panzermuseum Munster in 2019 & 2020.

Cover Design by vonKickass. Modified screenshot from War Thunder.

»» GET OUR BOOKS ««

»» SUPPORT MHV ««

»» MERCHANDISE ««

» SOURCES «

Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Tanks: 100 Years of Evolution. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.

Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Technology of Tanks I. Jane’s Information Group: Coulsdon, Surrey, UK, 1991.

Ogorkiewicz, Richard M.: Technology of Tanks II. Jane’s Information Group: Coulsdon, Surrey, UK, 1991.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-62 Main Battle Tank, 1965-2005. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-80 Standard Tank: The Soviet Army’s Last Armored Champion. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2009.

Zaloga, Steven J.: T-90 Standard Tank: The First Tank of the New Russia. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018.

Zaloga, Steve: T-64 Battle Tank: The Cold War’s most Secret Tank. Osprey Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.

Hilmes, Rolf: Meilensteine der Panzerentwicklung Panzerkonzepte und Baugruppentechnologie. Motorbuch Verlag: Stuttgart, Germany, 2020.

#ATGM,#MissilesVsGuns,#TankGuns

[TheChieftainsHatch]

It is worth noting some more recent developments. Though not accepted for service yet, the XM111 is a guided conventionally launched projectile fired from the 120mm cannon. It comes in two variants, one with a KE penetrator, the other with a shaped charge. It was designed for both line of sight and indirect fire, testing gained a hit at over 8.5km. (The M1 normally isn't expected to engage much over 4km).

Something else worth noting is that you can put a missile on anything, but if you want a proper accurate tank gun, you need something heavy enough to mount it, and hopefully tough enough to take what comes back the other way. So pretty much for a tank gun's firepower, you need a tank, but for a missile's firepower, you can use anything-but-a-tank.

[jprehberger]

Good video!
A couple of other factors to consider:
Missiles tend to be more fragile than tank rounds. Rounds can stand more bouncing around and mis-handling in armored vehicles than can missiles.
Missles tend to be bulkier than tank rounds (particularly while in their shipping containers) thus potentially limiting the shooting capacity in tanks.

[SilverShamrockNovelties]

Your choice of icon to illustrate the “top attack” made me laugh hard enough to spit my drink. Well played!

[bluemountain]

Presumably missiles are also more vulnerable to active defence systems too due to their slower speed and relative complexity/fragility

[Pikilloification]

Important to keep in mind as well that MBTs are not only designed to fight other tanks, but also support infantry or other vehicles. That may require the use of HE or smoke rounds. Missile systems to deliver those ammunitions would take too much room to be any useful.

[MUSASHI]

Also I think that tank guns are there for the higher versatility; tanks often shoot at structures/buildings in infantry support, and here the ability to shoot HE is very important.

[Archeangelous]

I wasn't an assaultman [Javelin] or a TOW gunner in the US Marines, but my buddies who were said they were trained to [ideally] trigger two additional smoke/demo explosions when firing so a tank crew had to choose among the 3 choices

[MsZeeZed]

Khrushchev was a big fan of missiles and rockets - see the Cuban Missile Crisis & the Space Race. Many Soviet rocket designers were Ukrainian (Khrushchev lived in Donbas as a child and governed Ukraine prior to WWII) and familiar to him. It was also a way he could take leadership of military matters within the Soviet Union, like Stalin but with a more progressive, modern approach (these opinions are stated in his autobiography)

[peteranderson]

8:10 "Top-Attack ATGMs" This quality analysis is why I watch this channel.

[mathiasvernet]

Another point to consider is that the line of sight might no always be clear. An APFSDS will go through a bush or a small wall without deviating or loosing too much penetration, while a missile will probably get deviated by the bush and stopped by the wall

[vladimpaler]

I think they also wanted to mount anti-tank missiles on other types of armored vehicles that could not support big guns, like the Bradley. Missiles do not have that huge recoil.

[MrDportjoe]

this long ago TOW/DRAGON repair tech loved this video. Just as an aside, a design flaw in the Dragon trainer made it very unlikely that any one live firing for the first time would get a hit. The simulator had a weight that shifted when the training blank was fired BUT it did NOT leave the training launcher, thus the weight on the gunner's shoulder never changed. So first live round fired the gunner would tend to rise as the 10 kilos of missile left his shoulder, often causing the missile to drop-if not bounce on it's flight path. I watched as EVERY DRagon round fired by a Ranger company did exactly that at Yakima firing center. Every shot missed the target train-even after a Master Sgt opted to jump on the trains engine to control the throttle.

[MilesStratton]

Excellent video as always Bernard! Was a pleasure to review the script and help out.

[Rationalific]

My favorite parts of this video were the "Top-Attack ATGMs" (8:11) and the note that anti-tank missiles are still Subsonic (10:56).

[Talon]

I mean, there were dedicated missile carriers like the Pereh in use and ATGMs are in frequent use as secondary armament for IFVs like the Bradley or Puma that simply don't have the space and carrying capacity for a full-blown 120 mm cannon.

[ilijiamin]

Interesting video. However, I would like to point out that one of the main reasons to use a gun-fired ATGM is to compensate for the fact that Soviet-type tanks have a much lower silhouette and so do their guns. Overall they have a narrower range for elevation and depression.

ATGMs don't care. They'll climb or dive where you guide them. This means, for example, they can be fired from the top of a hill at targets downhill where cannons wouldn't have a firing solution. For this same reason, they can be fired at helicopters with a greater chance of success than tank shells would. (In theory.)

Still, I find that most of the points in the video concerning the advantages and disadvantages of ATGMs vs shells are valid, I would like to put a little caveat on the travel time difference. In a tank vs tank scenario, even if there is a 1000 m/s difference. The humans operating the target vehicle will still, most likely, be unable to make their 50+ tons vehicle "dodge" the missile in time even if they are aware it is coming.

Furthermore. You can correct the trajectory of an ATGM, you can't correct a shell in flight.

In conclusion, the question 'Are missiles better than shells?' is just as relevant as the question: 'Is a sledgehammer better than a screwdriver?'

Think of that what you will.

[KRdHaene]

Love the Soviet Womble reference for "Fire and Forget".

[davidy-t]

Logistics is always the one point that gets missed any time someone comes up with a shiny thing... The very minor point that you may have missed is "how many rounds can you carry?" and once you fire those rounds/missiles off, how easy/hard is it to resupply? Missiles come in their own shipping containers which are extremely bulky, where as a pallet of tank rounds is a heavy but easy cargo unit.. Re-loading a tank with it's basic fire allotment is a well practiced routine for your tank crew... but a re-supply of a vehicle of replacement missiles is a much more complicated thing...
Overall, the logistical support for the weapon system really makes it a not very good choice for an tank.

[modernxenophon]

Another thing we have to take into account is the types of countermeasures available against missiles vs. tank gun rounds. There are several types of active protection systems against ATGMs that can shoot down incoming missiles with something like an automated shotgun (e.g. Trophy, Arena), or use electronic warfare to interfere with the missile guidance. And this is in addition to various types of reactive armor. On the other hand, once a kinetic round leaves the tank gun, there is little you can do about it. Shotguns, smokescreens, and electronic baffles have no effect whatsoever on an incoming APFSDS round.

[chrisdominguez]

This guy is GREAT!!! His facts are impressive - numerous, on point, and INTERESTING!!! Thank you for your encyclopedic presentations!!!!