Sevvania wrote:Manokan Republic wrote:Should I shoot this milan missile from two miles away and take out the enemy tank
Considering the MILAN's maximum operational range is 1.2 miles, you should not, because your missile will not reach. As the missile is wire-guided, you will also have to maintain continuous line of sight to the target as you bounce your rickety Toyota across the desert at speed.
Having never operated an anti-tank launcher from the back of a pickup truck, this sounds gloriously Mad Max, but hard.Manokan Republic wrote:should I get off within 100 yards of the tank where it's inevitable they will see me and the machine gun will open fire on me and I'm traveling 3 mph with a few rockets on foot since it's heavy, and then slowly set my weapon up to fire?
Or just pull up into cover, peek-a-boo them, then leave.
It depends on the MILAN missile used, of course, there are versions with a 3000 meter range, I.E. roughly 2 miles. I come back a week later and realize this is the thing I missed, not that bad really. Regardless the point is simple, that you would rather fire on people from a distance than get within accurate firing range of their machine guns. It is possible to engage someone out to a 1000 yards with a machine gun mounted on a tank, but it's very difficult, and at a mile or so it's extremely unlikely you'd hit the target, let alone with just a few rounds; it takes something like 25,000 rounds per enemy causality with machine guns, largely because they're fired out to long range for suppressive fire. You're not going to drop off at 100 yards with M72 laws or RPG-7's to try to tackle a T-72 tank, essentially, that is out in the field, with the risk the rounds might not even take the tank out or penetrate it's armor. It only really makes sense if it's parked or stationary in something like say, a base, when no-one is manning it or expecting an obvious attack, or if a tank is charging you and you have no other choice. Using the anti-tank missiles at a distance and mounted to a fast-moving vehicle with dozens of otherwise fairly heavy rocket launcher rounds make the most sense, and this is why IFV's are so popular, and why the Bradley, BMD, BTR, etc. all have vehicle mounted rocket launchers. It's why the U.S. mounted recoilless rifles on jeeps in WWII. Speed and mobility combined with the ability to carry heavy weapon on a vehicle make it a natural choice to use such weapons in this way. While these weapons are designed to be carried on foot if need and can be used that way, you can typically only carry a handful of rounds, such as 2-3, and the risk of return fire is so great it's considered useful only as a last resort. Furthermore lighter weight rocket launchers of the same effectiveness always tend to be far more expensive, so it's easier to carry slightly larger or heavier missiles, such as with the TOW, than go with something that is man-portable such as the javelin. The only real way to get away with using a javelin missile would be stealth, but given as it tends to give the users away, this isn't really practical except in certain environments.
The U.S. military largely predicted infantry troops using man-portable rocket launchers would take heavy casualties against enemy armor, and so it was basically conceive that this would be done sparingly. In short, it's not smart to charge a tank in a Toyota truck and then get out and slowly advanced towards it on foot. Fire and maneuver is the basis of all modern vehicle combat. Your agility is your biggest defensive advantage, it's why shoot and scoot is considered to be of such importance even for modern Tanks, and why speed and maneuverability is so heavily emphasized. The best way to avoid dying is to not got hit, obviously. You move out of the way of enemy fire, and stay on the move so they always have to aim at a moving target, that is constantly in and out of attack range; this also has the added benefit of potentially luring the enemy out in to the open, when they chase after you to get within range, thus giving you an advantage when they do.
