HJ-10 anti tank missile

Does it have top-attack abilities? Then frontal armour penetration is not that important.

no_name said:

Does it have top-attack abilities? Then frontal armour penetration is not that important.

Click to expand...

I am not aware that the HJ9 has top attack capability, which is why it was compared to against the Abram's highest armor rating.

I don't know either, heh.

plawolf said:

I am not aware that the HJ9 has top attack capability, which is why it was compared to against the Abram's highest armor rating.

Click to expand...

PLA don't like something that is not "direct hit" - it is simply too unreliable to bring it to the field.

Regarding the Abram's Depleted Uranium armour (that tough), I have doubt, but I am in no position to shout. Thanks the info anyway.

One fact (yet clouded with political agendas) is that, at 1st Persian Gulf war, single digit (8, eight, I remember) of M1A1 has been actually taken out by enemy fire instead of friendly fire. - Iraq have imported very few of HJ8, before the war. People with political agenda puts these two things togather.

- But there is no (official) proof that who or what, did the job, not to mention was it hit from behind? - that is why I get the doubt of "The M1A1/A2 are reported to have a front armor equivalent to 1320-1620mm of RHAe". But again, I can not reject this claim, either.

And if to accommodate top-attack capability, we'd see changes made to PLA training and exercise procedures, because the usual simple bulls-eye target won't cut it anymore.

MwRYum said:

And if to accommodate top-attack capability, we'd see changes made to PLA training and exercise procedures, because the usual simple bulls-eye target won't cut it anymore.

Click to expand...

I guess since from HJ9 onwards, it is not one-man-portable already, and if you mount AT weapon on a vehicle, MORE NUMBERS of MBT and small-vehicle-big-cannon 小车大炮 IFVs - might doing a better job than ATGM vehicle... then ATGMs simply don't get much attention, in the eyes of PLA, than in the eyes of us fans.

If the "kill per minute" rate in an all-out tank battle, those big-cannon IFVs can do better than ATGMs (no matter man-portable or vehicle mounted), the PLA would simply choose to emphasis on "Armour Group Battle" rather than dump resources into ATGMs.

- My understanding of the reason for PLA's ATGM development lag behind.

yeah, PLA was to slow about anti-tank technology, in the 70's-80's China afraid massive tank attack from soviet union. The only AT missile answer was only sagger, if they tanks inadequate this anti tank missile was the answer especially when this thing remote-controlled from far away like TRAP system only this for AT missile. PLA will need more smart and high speed AT missile before opposing tank APS activated.