Apart from that the ATGMs are not suit to defeat aircrafts, regardless of control
What I meant was ATGMs. Thanks for the correction... Presently utilized armoured vehicles, be they main battle tanks or infantry fighting vehicles seem to be highly vulnerable to them - certainly the types used by the Ukrainians. To compensate, it looks like armoured vehicles will have to have much thicker armour for significantly slower speeds.
Sorry for confusing MANPADS for ATGMs, I meant ATGMs... I want to discuss the vulnerability of armoured vehicles to currently utilized modern ATGMs... Accordingly, armoured vehicles must be made much thicker to greatly reduce their vulnerability, which will make them more massive, and as such with the same engines driving them, their speeds will be reduced... That would mean slower pace of battle... It is along these lines I am speaking...
I think you specifically meant ATGM but it seems someone already corrected it for you, anyway, depends on the type of ATGM we are talking about 60s-80s ATGMs usually don't have enough penetration to destroy Abrams frontally , but late 90s to current ones stuff like Kornet, Javelin, Spike, etc should theoritically able to penetrate Abrams frontally, especially Javelin and Spike because both of them are Top-Attack Missile.
I actually forgot to put a question mark in the "Those are Anti-Radiation Missile" statement, but it seems it's uneditable.
Haha. Don't worry about it. Based on the recent posts, it looks like some of the senior members here don't know what MANPADS stand for as well. So you aren't alone.
