Anti-tank warfare
The Korean War highlighted the difficulties that can arise with tank forces when vulnerable logistical support is combined with poor terrain. In the early stages of the war, North Korea's well equipped tank divisions were pushed back to the Yalu River, the border with China, by superior American tank power combined with air and infantry support. However, when the Chinese entered the war, they managed to reverse the American advances with infantry power alone.[citation needed] Because of the terrain and the need to keep the tanks supplied, American tanks were limited to two main roads.[citation needed] The Chinese merely occupied the land between the roads and harried the American supply lines and troop transports along the road.[citation needed] The Chinese infantry stuck to land that was impassable to tanks, such as rocky prominences and rice paddies[citation needed], neutralizing the advantage of both American armoured divisions and air support.
[
Future anti-tank
As bad as it looked for the tank in the 1960s, increases in depth of armor and improvements in armor technology meant that hand-held systems were no longer large enough to deliver enough power by the 1970s, and the introduction of Chobham armour by the UK and reactive armor by the USSR, forced the HEAT rounds to be so large that in many cases they are not man-portable.
Today the anti-tank role is filled with a variety of weapons, from portable "top attack" missiles, to larger HEAT missiles for use from jeeps and helicopters, a variety of high velocity autocannon, and ever-larger heavy tank guns.
One of the first lessons of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict is the effectiveness of portable antitank missiles (in particular, Russian-made Metis-M and European MILAN).
[
References and notes
[
External links
For more information review our copyright contact and privacy policy.