Stephane Rabier wrote: |
Hello,
I'm a complete novice but it puts me in mind of the perfect tank Vs the ultimate antitank weapon problem. I guess today no one would attack a Abrams or Leclerc tank using a 1918 antitank rifle, a 1944 bazooka and even with the latest rocket launcher a skilled soldier would certainly avoid to aim to the front plates and he would rather choose to attack the tracks, the turret/body joint or any vulnerable point, am I wrong? |
You are right, except that today, generally when the two combatant armies are more or less on equal ground, infantry would not be used against armor; instead, anti-armor roles would be fullfilled by other tanks, ground-support aircraft, or specialized self-propelled guns. These weapons are designed to destroy tanks head-on without having to resort to only vulerable points. Plus, there are some one-man shoulder weapons capable of doing significant damange to disable an Abrams, though most of these are in the US's own arsenal.
The point is I don't think that at any point in warfare, combatants could resort to such "strike in vulnerable spots" for long. Either they would lose, or some new weapon developed. In medieval times, that new weapon were firearms. Plus, the majority of armies did not wear head-to-toe plate. The basic soldier wore a helmet and a coat-of-plate, or a breastplate, so they were still quiet vulnerable to sword attacks.